Recovev Plan for 

LEATHERBACK TURTLES 

Dermochelys coriacea 

in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and 

Gulf of Mexico 

. * 

.4** -' 

,, *L 

*.& :* ,% b *. * ,f i 

**.+d f ?, Q 

$!, . .. d 

Kntionnl Occnnic ntld 

Atmospheric Aclrninistr n t' ion 

NATIONAL MARINE IJISIIETIII<S SERVICE U.S. FISII AND WII,DLIFE SEItVECE 
overy plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to 

protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Marine Fisheries Service, and sometimes with the assistance of 

State agencies and others. Objectives will only be attained 

upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary 

not necessarily represent the views nor the off~icial 

or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service involved in the plan formulation. They 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marirfe 

 it era turd citations should read as follows: 

arine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery 

Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

~dditiondl copies of this plan may be purchased from: 

The fee fbr the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIJ/E SUMMARY ......................................... iii 

I . ............................................ 1 

.......................................... 1 

................................................ 1 

................................................ 1 

and Size ................................. 2 

................................................... 6 

.. ................................... 6 

. Nesting Environment .................................. 9 

. Marine Environment .................................. 14 

................................. 16 

bjectives ............................................. 19 

A B . S epdown Outline and Narrative .............................. 19 . 4 

C . Literature Cited .......................................... 37 

Table 

Records of leatherback turtles nesting on beaches in the U . S . Virgin Islands ...................................... 6 1 

Tabl 2 . Records of leatherback turtles nesting on beaches in Puerto Rico. ! .................. including Mas Culebra. Vieques and Mona 63 

Tabl 3 . Reported nesting activity of leatherback turtles in Florida. e 1979-1990 ....................................... 65 
PART 1. INTRODUCTION 

Scope: This plan is directed at recovery of leatherback populations occur~ring 

U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The team recognizes the 

of U.S. coastal and pelagic waters to leatherbacks from nesting populations 

United States. It is not within the scope of this plan to develop recovery 

populations at their nesting beaches. Recovery measures delineateld in 

intended to include all leatherbacks within U.S. Caribbean, Atlaintic 

regardless of nesting beach affiliations. 

: The generic name Dermochelys was introduced by Blainville (1816). 'The 

to the distinctive leathery, scaleless skin of the adult turtle. The specific 

was first used by Vandelli (1761) and adopted by Linneaus (1766) (see 

1982). For the most recent detailed discussion of taxonomy <and 

and Trebbau (1984). 

The leatherback is the largest living turtle and is so distinctive that it is 

separate family, Dermochelyidae. Dermochelys possesses a skeletal 

unique among turtles (Rhodin et at., 1981) and recent karyological studies 

(Medrano et al., 1987) support classifications which segregate extant 

into two distinct families (Gaffney, 1975, 1984; Bickham and Carr, 

sea turtles are in the family Cheloniidae. 

hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and covered with tiny polygclnal 

flippers are margined in white and rows of white scales appear as 

of the back. In the USVl hatchlings average 61.3 mm (n =398) 

length and 45.8 g (n = 282) in weight (Eckert et al., 1984). Bloth 

lack claws. In the adult the epidermis is black (with varying 

and scaleless. This scaleless condition is unique among sea 

carapace, 

texture. 

connective 

point 

leathery 

the plastron, 

proportionally 

mean curved 

(range 137 

been 

Adults ard 

to 183 

relationst-ips 

range in 

on the 

Whereas other sea turtles have bony plates covered with horny scutes on the 

the slightly flexible carapace of the leatherback is distinguished by a rubber-like 

The carapace is about 4 cm thick and is made primarily of tough, oil-saturated 

tissue raised into seven prominent longitudinal ridges and tapered to a blunt 

posteriorly. A nearly continuous layer of small dermal bones lies just below the 

outer skin of the carapace. No sharp angle is formed between the carapace $and 

resulting in the animal being somewhat barrel-shaped. The front flippers are 

longer than in other sea turtles and may span 270 cm in an adult. 'The 

carapace length for adult females nesting in the U. S. Caribbean is 155 cm 

to 176). On Sandy Point NWR, weights of 262 kg to 506 kg (n=46) have 

recorded (Eckert and Eckert, 1985; Basford et al., 1986; Brandner et al., 1987). 

near adults captured in Virginia waters over the last decade range from 1137 

cm curved carapace length (J. Keinath, pers. comm.). Size and weight 

calculated from adult females in St. Croix, suggest the Virginia leatherbacks 

weight from 204 to 696 kg. The largest leatherback on record (a male) stranded 

coast of Wales in 1988 and weighed 91 6 kg (Morgan, 1989). 
turtles. a 

dark pign 

two toot 

sutures ( 

Tt 

temperat 

ambient 

inertia of 

exchangt 

relatively 

Greer et 

1990; P 

cartilagin 

an exten 

1981 ). 

I Populatio 

Nesting: 

1981), \ 

concentr, 

female le 

Mexico. 

Ya:lima:r 

estimatec 

nesting is 

1988a,b) 

at., 1985 

1987). 

0 r 

leatherba 

thereafte 

nested ar 

of Trinid~ 

numbers 

sub-regio 

leatherba 

relatively 

but repre 

Le 

Croix, St. 

Tables 1 

Sandy PC 

ie undersurface is mottled, pinkish-white and black, the proportion of light to 

snt being highly variable. In both adults and hatchlings, the upper jaw bears 

-like projections, each flanked by deep cusps, at the premaxillary-maxillary 

ritchard, 1 97 1 1. 

I internal anatomy and physiology are also distinctive. The core body 

re, at least for adults in cold water, has been shown to be several OC above the 

?air et at., 1972). This may be due to several features, including the thermal 

I large body mass, an insulating layer of subepidermal fat, countercurrent h~eat 

s in the flippers, potentially heat-generating brown adipose tissue, and a 

ow freezing point for lipids (Mrosovsky and Pritchard, 197 1 ; Friar et at., 1972; 

I., 1973; Neil1 and Stevens, 1974; Goff and Stenson, 1988; Davenport et al., 

ladino et at., 1990). The skeleton of Dermochelys remains extensively 

us, even in adult animals, and the species is unique among turtles in showing 

ve cartilage canal vascular system in the epiphyseal regions (Rhodin et at., 

Distribution and Size 

qesting grounds are distributed circumglobally (ca. 40°N to 35OS; Sternberg, 

ith the Pacific coast of Mexico supporting the world's largest knolwn 

:ion of nesting leatherbacks. Pritchard (1 982) estimates that 1 15,000 adult 

therbacks remain worldwide and that some 50% of them may nest in west:ern 

The largest nesting colony in the wider Caribbean region is found at 

I-Les Hattes, French Guiana, where the total number of adult females is 

to be 14,700 to 15,300 (Fretey and Girondot, 1989). Lower density Caribbean 

dso reported from Surinam (Pritchard, 1973; Schulz, 19751, Guyana (Pritchard, 

Colombia and Venezuela (Pritchard and Trebbau, 1984), Panama (Meylarr et 

Garcia, 19871, and Costa Rica (e.g., Carr and Ogren, 1959; Hirth and Ogren, 

the islands of the eastern Caribbean, Bacon (1 970) estimated that 150 to 200 

ks nested annually in Trinidad, primarily at Matura and Paria Bays. Shortly 

Bacon and Maliphant (1 971) indicated that perhaps 200 to 250 leatherbacks 

lually in Trinidad; recent population estimates are not available. Nesting north 

I in the Lesser and Greater Antilles is predictable, but occurs nowhere in large 

Caldwell and Rathjen, 1969; Carr et at., 1982; Meylan, 1983). The largest 

al nesting colony is in the Dominican Republic, where an estimated 300 

ks nest annually (Ross and Ottenwalder, 1983). The U. S. Caribbean supports 

ninor nesting colonies (probably 150-200 adult females per annum, combined) 

ents the most significant nesting activity within the United States. 

therback nesting in the U. S. Caribbean is reported from the Virgin Islands (St. 

rhomas, St. John) and Puerto Rico, including lslas Culebra, Vieques, and Mona. 

nd 2 in Appendix I summarize nesting records or reports in the U.S. Caribbean. 

it NWR (2.4 km nesting beach) on St. Croix and Playas Resaca and Brava (2.2 
km nesti g beach) on lsla Culebra support the largest nesting colonies of leatherback 

turtles in the United States and its territories. The total number of nests deposited 

annually on Sandy Point NWR has ranged from 82 (1 986) to 260 (1 991 (Eckert and 

Eckert, 1 85; Basford et al., 1986, 1988; McDonald, et al., 1991). On lsla Culebra, the 

colony .is smaller (88 to 184 nests per year 1984 to 1989; Tallevast et al., 1990). Pla~yas 

Resaca nd Brava receive 91 to 100 percent of all leatherback nesting on Culebra 

(Tucker, I I 988). 

up on earlier reports of Dermochelys nesting on lsla Vieques (e!.g., 

Pritchard and Stubbs (1982) reported 26 nests from aerial surveys 

October 1980 and October 1981. On lsla Mona, no leatherback 

in 1974 or 1975 (Thurston; 1975; Thurston and Wiewandt, 19'75). 

0- 1 1 nests per annum (1 983 to 1 988; Gonztiles, 1 984; Kontos, 

the main island of Puerto Rico, leatherback nesting occurs on 

does the species occur in large numbers (Cintron and 

have recorded 10 or fewer nests each annually on Playas 

(Matos, 1986, 1987). Slightly higher levels of activity 

USVI, fewer than ten leatherback nests per anum are recorded on the islands 

St. Thomas (Zullo, 1986; Boulon, 1987; Eckert, 1989). About 50 tab 70 

nesting on St. Croix occurs on Sandy Point NWR (0. Tranberg pers. 

most important nesting beach for the species on St. Croi:~ is 

52 nests per annum 1983 to 1988; Adams, 1988); low levels of 

year) are reported from a dozen other beaches (Boulon, 1987; 

Park Service recorded 0 to 18 leatherback crawls annually 

Island Reef National Monument, a small island situated off 

(Z. Hillis, pers. comm.). 

nesting in Florida was once considered extremely rare (Carr, 1952; 

Allen and Neill, 1957). Later, when new data became available, 

reported in 1957, Caldwell (1 959) suggested that the species 

on the beaches of the south Atlantic coast of Florida." Tolday 

monitored for sea turtle nesting and 38 to 125 leatherback 

authorities annually during the period 198 1 to 1990 (Conley 

FDNR, pers. comm.). Table 3 in Appendix 1 

during the period 1979 to 1990. Florida Atlantic 

reported for Sandy Point NWR or Culebra, but 

example, in 1987, a high year in Florida, '1 25 

of Florida beach as compared to 184 nests; on 

and 171 nests on 2.4 km at Sandy Ploint 

NWR. 

has been reported on the west coast of Florida since the year the Sltate 

in 1979 (B. Schroeder, pers. comm.), but in 1974 a nest was 

Island NWR off the northwest coast of Florida (LeBuff, 1976). 
a leatherback false crawl was observed on Sanibel in July 1988 (LeBuff, 

nesting record from each of Cumberland Island and Blackbeard Island, 

et al., 19821, and an unconfirmed report of hatchlings emerging at 

Carolina (Schwartz, 19771, provide the only documentation of the 

of Florida. Hildebrand (1 963) was informed by a resident of Padre 

nesting individuals had been seen on the island in the 1 9301s, 

the southeastern United States the geography of beach coverage is 

but the timing is often inadequate to gain a complete picture! of 

patrols are designed to maximize observations of loggerhead 

commence in May, whereas leatherbacks start nesting as 

Thus, current data slightly underestimate actual nesting 

from Florida and Georgia are probably deposited by 

nothing is known of the pelagic distribution of hatchling or juvernile 

The paths taken by hatchlings leaving their natal beaches are 

of the "lost year" (the early pelagic stage of sea turtle 

tabulated summaries of neonate and juvenile sea turtles 

or taken from pelagic habitats (e.g., Carr, 1987) hisve 

Dermochelys. Our knowledge of juvenile "distribution" 

and includes sightings in waters within 

pers. comm. to A. Kontos) and outside 

1977; Horrocks, 1987) the United 

stranding on United States shores are generally of adult or near adult siize, 

the importance of pelagic habitat under U. S. jurisdiction to turtles breeding 

subtropical latitudes. Direct evidence of this is available from Caribbean 

erican tagged turtles stranding on U. S. shores. Nesters tagged in French 

uently stranded in Georgia (S. Eckert, pers. comm.), as well as in New York 

ers.comm.), New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas (Pritchard, 197'6). 

in Trinidad and St. Croix subsequently stranded in New York (Lambie, 

Jersey (Boulon et al., 1 988), respectively. Conversely, an individlual 

a waters in 1985 was killed a year later in Cuba (Barnard et al., 1989). 

ce of the importance of U.S. coastal waters for leatherbacks is provided 

Stranding and Salvage Network. During the period 1980 to 1991, 81 6 

dings were recorded along the continental U.S. coastline. During this 

1 leatherbacks were recovered dead along Florida's coast. Curved 

for the Florida strandings ranged from 1 10.0 cm to 195.0 cm. Eightyleatherback strandings in Florida occurred between January to April and 

ber. Strandings were lowest (16%) during summer months, May- 
determine leatherback distribution and numbers in the marine 

have met with varying degrees of success. A 1987 aerial survey of shalllow 

co waters (Perdido Bay, AL to Cape San Blas, FL) described leatherbackr; as 

in all study areas (though relatively more common in autumn than in spring), 

ensity being 0.027 leatherbacksl 100 km2 offshore Louisiana in Octolber 

et al., 1988). Earlier surveys (April 1982-February 1983) in the Atlantic 

erbacks in the study area (Key West, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC, out to the 

ary of the Gulf Stream) year around, but no density estimates were given 

84). Thompson (1 984) reported a significant negative correlation between 

d water temperature in the spring, fall and winter, suggesting that the 

ependent upon warm temperatures and is likely to be associated with 

more productive waters. The same study reported that leatherbacks 

er water about 20°C ( * 5O) and were rarely sighted in the Gulf Stream 

Summarizing incidental catch and interview data (1 897-1 980), as well 

tions recorded during shore to Gulf Stream summer transects, Lee and 

o concluded that (at least off North Carolina) leatherbacks were rarely 

tream and were most often seen in waters < 500 fathoms in depth. 

A urvey conducted during March 1982-August 1984, but restricted to the Cape 

Canaveral area, reported that 94.5 percent of all leatherback sightings (n = 128 total) 

occurred east of the 20 m isobath and 90.6 percent occurred during the sumrner 

(Schroed r and Thompson, 1987). In contrast, New England Aquarium surveys of Florida 

and Geor ia (1 984-1 988) reported few leatherbacks prior to 1988, but in mid Febru,ary 

of that y ar 168 leatherbacks were sighted along the northeast coast of Florida, with 

peak den ities reported along 50 miles of coastline between Daytona Beach and Cape 

Canaveral (Knowlton and Weigle, 1989). The impetus for this sudden winter abundance 

in Florida earshore waters is unknown; by the following survey (1 6 March) the animals 

had disap eared (Knowlton and Weigle, 1989). The extent to which distribution and 

abundanc a are defined by transient phenomena is presently unclear. 

79 aerial survey of the mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U. S. Outer 

Shelf (shoreline to the surface projection of the 2000 m isobath) between 

s, NC and Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, showed leatherbacks to be present Alpril 

throughout the study area (but most likely to be observed from the Gulf of 

Maine south 

were in the 

were 

than were 

to Long Island); peak estimates of relative abundances during the sumnier 

hundreds (Shoop et al., 1981 1. The same study concluded that leatherbacks 

observed more frequently in colder waters at higher latitudes during the sumnier 

other sea turtle species. Small boaters fishing within 10 miles of the sot~th 

ng Island, New York and within Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts frequen~tly 

erback sightings (S. Morreale, pers. comm.; R. Prescott, pers. comrn). 

s are frequently sighted during aerial surveys of Chesapeake Bay, especially 

(and during the summer months) where they appear to be foraging (Keinath 

in press). In Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, sightings peak in August and 

rescott, 1988). Between 1977 and 1987, no live sightings were reported 

r after October and 82 percent of all stranded turtles were observed in 

tober and November (Prescott, 1988). 
Status 

The leatherback sea turtle is considered endangered throughout its global range 

(Groombridge, 1982). It was listed as Endangered under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act by the United States Department of the Interior on June 2, 1970 and is 

included on Appendix I of CITES, which the United States ratified in 1974. The nesting 

beach at Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix, became the first nesting beach of any marine turtle 

to be proposed as critical habitat (Federal Register, 23 March 1978; 43 FR 12050-1 2051 ) 

(Dodd, 1978). In September 1978, the FWS designated the nesting beach on Sandy 

Point, St. Croix, as critical habitat; in March 1979, the NMFS determined the surrounding 

waters as critical habitat. 

Declines in the number of nesting females have been documented in Malaysia 

(Brahim et al., 1987), India (Cameron, 1923; Kar and Bhaskar, 19821, Thailand (Polunin, 

1977), and the West lndies (Bacon, 1970; Eckert and Lettsome, 1988; Eckert, 1989). 

It is not known at the present time whether leatherback populations within the United 

States are stable, increasing or declining, but there is no question that some nesting 

populations (e.g., St. John, St. Thomas) have been virtually exterminated. The number 

of leatherbacks nesting in the past at what is now Sandy Point NWR is unknown, but 

studies of the population since 1981 show annual fluctuations which do not project a 

long-term decline. 

Biological Characteristics 

Habitat: Adult leatherbacks are highly migratory and believed to be the most pelagic of 

all sea turtles. Habitat requirements for juvenile and post-hatchling leatherbacks however, 

are virtually unknown. Nesting females prefer high-energy beaches with deep, 

unobstructed access (Hirth, 1980; Mrosovsky, 1983) which occur most frequently along 

continental shorelines (Hendrickson, 1980). 

Diet: Food habits are known primarily from the stomach samples of slaughtered animals 

(Brongersma, 1969; Hartog, 1980; Hartog and Van Nierop, 1984). Leatherbacks feed on 

pelagic medusae (jellyfish), siphonophores, and salpae in temperate and boreal latitudes 

(e.g., Bleakney, 1965; Brongersma, 1969; Duron, 1978; Eisenberg and Frazier, 1983; 

Musick, 1988). Keinath and Musick (in press) note that "many" leatherbacks are 

observed off the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, "presumably feeding on the abundant jellyfish 

[there]." Aerial surveys document leatherbacks in Virginia waters, especially May to July 

during peak jellyfish (Chrysaora, Aurelia) abundance (Musick, 1988; J. Keinath, pers. 

comm.). Further south, foraging on the cabbage head jellyfish (Stomolophus meleagris) 

has been observed in waters off North Carolina (F. Schwartz, pers. comm.). In February 

1989, an adult female leatherback (originally tagged in French Guiana) stranded on the 

Georgia coast and stomach contents revealed unidentified medusae and Libinia sp., a 

small crab commensal on Stomolophus (S. Eckert, pers. comm.). Captain Joe Webster 

has observed leatherbacks feeding on "jellyballs" (Stomolophus) in Georgia waters and 

notes that the turtles are seen in water as shallow as 15 feet where jellyballs are 

abundant (A, Kontos, pers. comm.). In the Gulf of Mexico, aerial survey data often show 
associated with Stomolophus (e.g., Leary, 1957; Lohoefener et al., 19'88). 

have also reported a "co-incidence" of leatherbacks and maxinium 

especially Aurelia, in the Gulf (S. Collard, pers. comm.) 

has most often been observed at the surface, but Hartog (1 980) 

foraging may occur at depth after finding nematocysts from deep water 

leatherback stomach'samples. Limpus (1 984) reported a leatherback 

bait on a handline at 50 m depth off western Australia. Basetf on 

diving by adult females nesting on St. Croix, Eckert et al. (1 989) 

internesting dive behavior reflected nocturnal feeding within 

comprised primarily of vertically migrating zooplankters, 

in the Caribbean; Michel and Foyo, 1976). Eckert 

depth of 1300 m, but report that 95 percen~t of 

95 percent are < 200 m in depth. 

growth data are widely disparate, but the very rapid growth reported by 

(coupled with evidence of chondro-osseous development conducive 

led to speculations that leatherbacks may reach sexual maturity in 

1985). Bels et al. (1 988) challenge this hypothesis in their relport 

1200 days of age weighing 28.5 kg, with a carapace 82 

may well grow to sexual maturity at an earlier age than 

more data are needed before growth rates can1 be 

Growth: 

Mating behavior is described by darr and Carr (1 986) in waters off Pucsrto 

there is some indirect evidence that mating typically occurs prior to (or 

to the nesting ground (Eckert and Eckert, 1988). Nesting behavior (~i.e., 

entailing beaching, ascent, selection of a suitable site, 'body pitti~ig', 

oviposition, nest filling and camouflage, departure) is similar to 

species (detailed descriptions in Deraniyagala, 1936; Carr and 

emerge from the sea nocturnally; diurnal nesting occurs 

for nesting in high energy and thus frequently 

not uncommon that large numbers of eggs are lost to 

1971 ; Hughes, 1974; Mrosovsky, 1983; Eckert, 191371, 

(Tucker, 1989). While the majority of females re1:urn 

No data on the growth rate of juvenile leatherback turtles in the wild are 

available 

leatherback 

methodo 

survivabi 

investiga.!ors 

growth 

Spoczyncrka, 

al., 1988). 

years. 

This situation arises from the unfortunate fact that the distribution of juvemile 

turtles is unknown, and thus specimens are unavailable for capture-recapture 

ogies designed to measure growth. The problem is exacerbated by poor 

ity in captivity, which further limits opportunities for study. Nonetheless, some 

have been successful in raising leatherbacks and publishing data on captive 

rates (Deraniyagala, 1936; Glusing, 1967; Birkenmeier, 1970; Frair, 18170; 

1970; Foster and Chapman, 1975; Phillips, 1977; Witham, 1977; Bels et 

With the exception of Bels et al. (1 9881, turtles did not survive beyond .two 
e nesting beach repeatedly throughout the nesting season, some females are 

on separate beaches > 100 km apart within a season. 

United States and wider Caribbean, nesting commences in March (a very few 

in February) and continues into July. The most systematic data available 

ve output has been gathered at Sandy Point NWR and lsla Culebra. Data 

ects reveal that females arrive at the nesting beach asynchronously, reriest 

very 9-1 0 days, deposit 5-7 nests per annum (observed maximum = 'I I), 

redominantly at 2-3 year intervals. The annual nest:false crawl ratio on 

hes) is 4: 1 to 6.2: 1 (1 984-1 987; Tucker, 1 988); 1.2: 1 to 3: 1 on Sa~ndy 

8; USVl Div. Fish Wildl., unpubl. data). Clutch size averages 11 6 eggs, 

ked eggs, on Sandy Point NWR, 103 eggs, including 70 yolked, on 

ize average 101 eggs, including 76 yolked, on Hutchinson Island, FlolPida 

comm.). Similar clutch sizes are reported elsewhere on St. Croix 

d Puerto Rico (Matos, 1986, 19871, as well as in Florida (Carr, 1952; 

roward County EPDIEQCB, 1987) and Georgia (Ruckdeschel et al. 

ate for 55 to 75 days, consistently averaging 63 days on both Sandy 

nd 64 days on Hutchinson Island, Florida. In situ hatch success for 

rm is ca. 55 percent on Manchenil Bay, St. Croix (Adams, 1988) ca., 

Point NWR (Eckert and Eckert, 1985; Brandner et al., 1987, 19'90) 

Hutchison Island, Florida (E. Martin, pers. comm.). Higher success 

orted on Culebra (Tucker, 1988, 1989). 

emperature of nest incubation influences the sex of hatchlings and several 

cautioned against artificial incubation techniques which potentially bias :sex 

rosovsky and Yntema, 1980; Morreale et al., 1982; Mrosovsky, 19133; 

1985; Rimblot et al., 1985). For sea turtles, high temperatures result in 

ngs and low temperatures result in male hatchlings. The "pivotal 

ca. 1 :1 sex ratio, Mrosovsky and Yntema, 1980) may differ with species 

r example, in Surinam, leatherbacks require slightly higher (ca. 0.5"C) 

r female differentiation than green turtles, and leatherbacks nest in 

r numbers during the warmer parts of the season (Mrosovsky et #al., 

otal temperature for leatherback eggs is estimated to be 29.25 to 

am (Mrosovsky et al., 1984; Dutton et al., 1985) and French Guiana 

985; Rimblot-Baly et at., 1986-1 987) and may be lower in higher 

the U. S. Caribbean territories). 

e work has been done to define temperature regimes on Sandy Point NLYR 

the objective of assessing the effects of egg relocation on natural sex ratios. 

ally significant temperature differences were recorded spatially along the 2.4 

beach, suggesting that "egg relocation [from zones of high erosion risk to 

risk] has no effect on the natural sex ratio of the hatchlings" (Basford and 

Pivotal temperatures have yet to be determined on Sandy Point NV\IRl 

temperatures reported from Surinam and broad correlations between 

sex ratio (from Mrosovsky et al., 1984), Basford (1 988) predicted 

to be produced early in the season (March-April nests), while 
(June) may produce nearly 100% females. Estimates of the proportion of 

over the course of the season (based on incubation duration) were 

in 1986 and 92.2% in 1987, the latter an unusually hot year 

The leatherback migrates farther (Pritchard, 1976) and ventt~res 

than does any other marine reptile (e.g., Threlfall, 1 978; Goff and 

currently available from tag returns and strandings in the 

that adults engage in routine migrations between boreal, 

presumably to optimize both foraging and nesting 

1976; Lazell, 1980; Rhodin and Schoelkopf, 

of epibiotic barnacle communities on 

evidence that gravid females embark 

(Eckert and Eckert, 1988). 

t evidence of long-distance movement is scarce, but is available from 

tagged while nesting in the Caribbean and subsequently stranding in northern 

tchard, 1973, 1976; Lambie, 1983; Boulon et al., 1988; see Populartion 

nd Size-Pelagic) and also from a turtle tagged in Chesapeake Bay in 1985 

uba in 1986 (Barnard et al., 1989). In addition, a nester tagged at Jupiter 

, was recaptured near cayo Arcas, Gulf of Campeche (Hildebrand, 1987), 

tagged at Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix, was recaptured near cayos 

o in the Gulf of Campeche, two years later and some 3,000 km from the 

oulon, 1989). The longest known movement is that of an adult fernale 

,900 km to Ghana, West Africa, after nesting in Surinam (Pritchard, 197'3). 

tagged with a satellite transmitter while nesting in French Guiana in 1986 

m in three weeks (an average speed of 40 kmlday, Duron-DuFrenne, 

r tagged with a satellite transmitter on Sandy Point NWR, St. Croix in 

15 km (and ventured some 200 km south of St. Croix) before the 

emoved 18 days later when the turtle emerged to nest on lsla Culebra 

Threats - besting Environment 

The leatherback was never harvested to any great extent along ,the 

United States, though Caldwell (1959) reports a subadult shot in 1954 in 

Florida and a nester flipped over (presumably in preparation for slaugh1:er) 

Florida in 1957. Leatherback turtles historically were taken only rarely 

the USVI where it was occasionally available salted or cured in local 

pers. comm.). Very few leatherbacks are known to have been 

in the USVI. Otto Tranberg, a former USVI Environmental 

a slaughtered leatherback on Sandy Point, St. Croix, in 

three slaughtered leatherbacks on Sandy Point during ithe 

1988, a turtle was found slaughtered on St. Croix at 
In uerto Rico adults are still occasionally taken for meat and oil (B. Cintron, pors. 

comm.) tranding data include two killings since 1.985; one in July 1986 on the nesting 

beach at as Paulinas and a second in April 1987 from Piiiones, both on the northeast 

coast (K. Hall, pers. comm.). In addition, in April 1985 an adult was killed and left tied 

to a rock on a Vieques beach east of Punta Salinas (M. Weitzel, pers. comm. to T. 

Tucker). f 

theft of eggs for local consumption is not currently a problem in Florida 

pers. comm.), but continues at low levels in the USVl (Adams, 19rB8; 

0. Tranberg, pers. comm.) and is widespread in Puerto Rico (e.g., Cint~ron 

Even though the harvest of sea turtle eggs is illegal in Puerto Rico, 

have been unsuccessful in deterring it. Historically the situation 

Rico's smaller islands; e.g., egg poaching has been described as 

(Carr, 1978a) and a "major problem" (Tucker, 1988) on 

been all but eliminated on Culebra as a result of nightly 

initiated by FWS on important nesting beaches in 

sion: Leatherbacks prefer open access beaches presumably to avoid damage 

ft plastron and flippers. However, beaches with little shoreline protection tend 

often displaying severe beach erosion during seasonal changes; in 

Eggs that are laid in beach areas that erode before hatching are 

most leatherback nesting beaches are relative stable with 

but on Sandy Point, approximately 40 to 60 percent of all 

lost without human intervention (Basford et al., 1988). 

St. Croix are lost to wave inundation (Adams, 1988). 

Mona Island, and the north coast of Puerto Rico 

current low number of leatherbacks nesting in 

be a significant threat to the recovery of 

* 

leatherbacks nest in the tropics during hurricane season, there is also 

generated waves and wind to erode nesting beaches and result in nest 

NWR, where eggs are continuously moved out of erosion zones, 

lost to erosion are the result of tropical storms or hurricanes 

Twelve nests were lost to Hurricane Dean in 1989 on Culebra (T. 

In 1980, only four out of approximately 80 nests laid on Sarldy 

following the catastrophic effects of Hurricane Allen in midoring: Where beachfront development occurs, the site is often fortified to 

property from erosion. Virtually all shoreline engineering is carried out to save 

not dry sandy beaches, and ultimately results in environmental damage. 

includes sea walls, rock revetments, riprap, sandbag installations, groins 

21 percent (234 km) of Florida's beaches are armored (FDFJR, 

can result in permanent loss of a dry nesting beach 
erosion and prevention of natural beachldune accretion and can 

nesting females frh accessing suitable nesting sites. Clutches 

these structures may be inundated at high tide or washed out 

action near the base of these structures. As these struct~ures 

debris on the beach which may further impede access to 

crawls) and trap hatchlings and 

to rapid failure and resullt in 

Rock revetments, riprap and sand bags can cause 

or to construct improperly sized and shaped 

cover these structures. 

and jetties are designed to trap sand during transport in longshore currents 

from flowing into channels in the case of the latter. These structures 

sand transport and accrete beaches o'n one side of the structure while 

beaches on the other side thereby resulting in severe beach erosion 

and corresponding degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Drift 

called sand fences, are erected to build and stabilize dunes; by 

the beach and preventing excessive sand loss. Additionally, 

dune systems by deterring public access. Construc:ted 

or plastic slats or plastic fabric, improperly placed 

and/or trap emergent hatchlings and nesting 

females. 

Beach nourishment is a common practice in Florida and consists of 

scraping sand onto the beach to rebuild what has been lost to 

can impact turtles through direct burial of nests and by 

if conducted during the nesting season. Sand sources may 

sediments and can affect nest site selection, digging 

( and hence sex ratios), gas exchange within incubating 

hatching success and hatchling emergence success 

1982; Raymond, 1984a). Beach nourishment 

of the beach. Trucking of sand onto project 

reductions in loggerhead nesting success have been documented on 

nourished beaches (Raymond, 1984a). Nelson and Dickerson (1 9iB8) 

levels at ten renourished east coast Florida beaches and concluded 

hard enough to inhibit nest digging, 30 percent were questionable 

affected nest digging and 20 percent were probably not hard 

They further concluded that, in general, beaches nouristled 

harder than natural beaches, and, while some may soften 

accretion of sand, others may remain hard for 10 years or 

result in severe escarpments along the mid-beach and can 
result in heavy machinery, pipelines, increased human activity 

lighting on the project beach. These activities are normally conducted on a 

and can create barriers to nesting females emerging from the surf iond 

the beach, causing a higher incidence of false crawls (non-nesting 

Increased human activity on the project beach at night may cause further 

nesting females. Artificial lights along the project beach and in the 

of the borrow site may deter nesting females and disorient or misorient 

from adjacent non-project beaches. 

h nourishment projects require continual maintenance (subsequent 

) as beaches erode and hence their negative impacts to turtles are repeated 

basis. Beach nourishment projects conducted during the nesting season can 

loss of some nests which may be inadvertently missed or misidentified as 

during daily patrols conducted to identify and relocate nests deposited on ,the 

(Lund, 1973; R. Wolf, pers. comm.). Nourishment of highly eroded beaches 

ose with a complete absence of dry beach) can be beneficial to nesting 

nducted properly. Careful consideration and advance planning and 

ust be carried out to ensure timing, methodology and sand sources are 

nesting and hatching requirements. 

Extensive research has demonstrated that the principal component of 

of emergent hatchlings is a visual response to light (Daniel and 

1958; Carr and Ogren, 1960; Ehrenfeld and Carr, 1967; 

and Nelson, 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991 1. 

buildings, streetlights, dune crossovers, vehicles and 

have been documented in the disorientation (loss of 

orientation) of hatchling turtles (McFarlane, 1983; 

1983). On Sandy Point NWR, hatchlings are 

nights, to the lights of Frederiksted several km 

results of disorientation or misorientation are often fatal. As hatchlings he!ad 

or meander along the beach their exposure to predators and likelihood of 

greatly increased. Misoriented hatchlings can become entrapped in 

and in Florida loggerhead hatchlings are frequently found dead on 

in parking lots after being struck by vehicles. Hatchlings that 

may be misoriented after entering the surf zone or while in 

lighting can even draw hatchlings back out of the surf 

Ogren, 1960). 

of artificial beachfront lighting is not restricted to hatchlings. A post-nestiing 

died recently after traveling inland toward a security light on Anegada, British 

(Eckert and Lettsome, 1988). Raymond (1 984b) indicated that adlult 

patterns were correlated with variations in beachfront lighting1 in 

Florida, and that nesting females avoided areas where beachfront 

intense. Witherington (1986) noted that loggerheads aborted 
at a greater frequency in lighted areas. More recently, Witherington~ (in 

broad spectrum artificial lights significantly reduced loggerhead ;and 

activity within a Melbourne Beach, Florida study area. Problem lights 

to those placed directly on or in close proximity to nesting beach~es. 

associated with intensive inland lighting, such as that emanating 

areas, may deter nesting females and disorient or misorient 

waters. Cumulatively, along the heavily developed 

United States and Puerto Rico, the negative 

ing: Beach cleaning refers to the removal of both abiotic and biotic detlris 

ed beaches. There are several methods employed including mechanical 

aking and picking up debris by hand. Mechanical raking can result in heavy 

eatedly traversing nests and potentially compacting sand above nests and 

tire ruts along the beach which may hinder or trap emergent hatchlinlgs. 

uggested that mortality within nests may increase when externally applied 

beach cleaning machinery is common on soft beaches with large-grain 

cally pulled rakes and hand rakes can penetrate the surface and disturb the 

ay actually uncover pre-emergent hatchlings near the surface of the nest. 

ollected debris is buried directly on the beach, and this can lead to 

estruction of incubating egg clutches. Disposal of debris near the dune 

beach can cover incubating egg clutches and subsequently hinder alnd 

atchlings and may alter natural nest temperatures. Mechanical beach 

reason for extensive nest relocation on Florida beaches. 

Recreation I Beach Equipment: The placement of physical obstacles (e.g., lounge chairs, 

cabanas, mbrella, hobie cats, canoes, small boats and beach cycles) on nesting beaches 

can hamp r or deter nesting attempts and interfere with incubating egg clutches and the 

sea appro ch of hatchlings. The documentation of false crawls at these obstacles is 

becoming increasingly common as more recreational beach equipment is left in place 

nightly on esting beaches. In addition, the placement of recreational beach equipment 

directly ab ve incubating egg clutches may hamper hatchlings during emergence and clan 

destroy eg 1 s through direct invasion of the nest. 

Increased 

nesting 

and hatch 

beach is the 

females to 

reported t 

delay egg 

humans 

to compac:tion 

with the 

use of flas 

(Mortimer, 

Human Presence: Residential and tourist use of developed (and developing) 

beeches can result in negative impacts to nesting turtles, incubating egg clutches 

ings. The most serious threat caused by increased human presence on the 

disturbance to nesting females. Night-time human activity can cause nesting 

abort nesting attempts at all stages of the behavioral process. Murphy (1 9E15) 

Tat disturbance can cause loggerhead turtles to shift their nesting beaches, 

laying, and select poor nesting sites. Heavy utilization of nesting beaches by 

(pedestrian traffic) may result in lowered hatchling emergence success rates due 

of sand above nests (Mann, 1977), and pedestrian tracks can interfere 

ability of hatchlings to reach the ocean (Hosier et al., 1981 1. Campfires and the 

 lights on nesting beaches misorient hatchlings and can deter nesting females 

1 979). 
Hatchlin Mortality: A considerable number of leatherback eggs survive the incubation 

period, d velop to full-term and then fail to successfully emerge (Eckert and Eck:ert, 

1990). portion of this mortality is due to entanglement in beachvine roots that have 

grown in o or over the nest cavity since egg deposition. On beaches with regular nest 

monitori g, many of these may be saved by excavation following the main hatchding 

emergen e. A second, larger portion of pre-emergence mortality remains unexplair~ed. 

On Sand Point NWR in 1988, 27.5 percent of all embryos that developed to term were 

found de d in the nest, either in the shell, pipped or emerged from the shell (Basfond et 

al., 1988 . On Manchenil Beach this mortality was 23.3 percent (Adarps, 1988). Stress 

and/or la 1 k of oxygen at this critical time may be very important factors in this mortality. 

crabs (Ocypode quadratus) and yellow crown night herons (Nyctanessa 

common hatchling predators on the beach at night, but probably do not 

significant amount of hatchling mortality. Other predators include dogs, 

ants. Annual loss of productivity due to beach predators was estimated 

on Sandy Point NWR (Eckert and Eckert, 1985). Abiotic beach threats 

and vehicle tracks (see below). Hatchlings have been fat:ally 

discarded fishing line on Sandy Point NWR. Once they leave 

preyed upon by sharks, fish and seabirds (R. Boulon, plers. 

important hatchling mortality factor, but is one which is 

ular Driving: Beaches are often times viewed as a playground for off-road 

's, 4x4'~~ motorcycles). This may decrease hatchling success due to stand 

(Mann, 1977) or directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings as happened on Sa~ndy 

in 1984 with at least one nest. Vehicles can also strike and kill hatchlings 

crawling to the ocean. Vehicle tire ruts also interfere with the ability of 

raverse the beach to the ocean (Hosier, et at., 1981 1. On some beaches 

s problem. Beaches with limited access (eg. Culebra, Buck Island) have 

blem of this sort. On other beaches however, this may be a serious 

andy Point NWR, Basford et al., 1988; Mandahl and Caret Bays, St. 

of Environmental Enforcement Officers, pers. comm.; Manchenil Bay, St. 

988; and northeastern Puerto Rico, P.J.R. Lugo, H.C. Horta, pers. comm.) 

I and Puerto Rico this activity is illegal, yet it persists. In Florida beach 

ed in portions of Nassau, St. John's, Flagler and Volusia Counties along 

ight driving is permitted within some of these areas. This can disturb 

result in aborted nesting attempts. 

Threats - ~arine Environment 

at Sea: Leatherbacks become entangled fairly often in longlines, fish trap 

lines and other ropes and cables. This can lead to serious injuries 

Many nesting females on Sandy Point NWR exhibit various 

cuts on their shoulders and front flippers (R. Boulon, pers. 

nesting season two different Culebra, Puerto Rico, fishermen 

entangled in their fish trap ropes. The setting of 
"large m sh nets suitable for turtling" is common in Puerto Rican waters, with as miany 

as 37 of hem recorded during a single over-flight of Puerto Rico (including the islands of 

Culebra nd Vieques) in 1984 (T. Carr in Rathbun et al., 1985). This practice continues, 

despite t e 1984 amendment of the Puerto Rico Fisheries Act prohibiting the use of turtle 

nets in P erto Rico's territorial waters. Though the nets are intended for hawksbills and 

green tu 1 les, leatherbacks also occasionally become entangled. 

a decade of data (1 977-1 9871, Prescott (1 988) implicated 

in lobster pot lines) in 51 of 57 (89%) adult leatherblack 

Bay, Massachusetts. Fretey (1 982) published an extensive 

among leatherbacks in the large French Guiana nesting colony, 

known to come from feeding grounds in the northeastern 

(1 988) reported that of 20 leatherbacks encountered off the 

Labrador (1976 to 19851, 14 (70%) were entangled in 

net, herring net, gillnet, trawl line and crab pot lime). 

associated with longlining for tuna in the northern 

in the ganglion or caught on the hook" 

of Marine Debris: Marine turtles have been found to ingest a wide variety of 

items such as plastic bags, raw plastic pellets, plastic and styrofoam pieces, 

balloons. Effects of debris ingestion can include direct obstruction of the 

of toxic byproducts and reduced absorption of nutrients across the gut 

Studies conducted by Lutz (in press) revealed that both loggerhiead 

actively ingested small pieces of latex and plastic sheeti~ng. 

a possible interference in energy metabolism or gut function, 

Persistence of the material in the gut lasted from a lfew 

therbacks apparently mistake floating plastic (bags, sheets) for jellyfish (and 

Ten of 33 dead leatherbacks washed ashore on Long Island between 1979 

had ingested plastic bags, plastic sheets or monofilament (Sadove and 

Mrosovsky (1 981) reviewed data from leatherback stomach content 

worldwide (N = 16) and concluded that approximately 44 

examined had plastic in their stomachs. In 1981 a 

stranded in New Jersey with a clay-like enterallith 

et. al., 1988). The origin of this ~bstructiorl is 

unknown 

Fisheries: Henwood and Stuntz (1 987) estimated the offshore commercial 

captures about 640 leatherbacks annually in the southeastern United States. 

25 percent (160) of the captured animals die from drowning and many 

undoubtedly injured unintentionally as a consequence of the difficulty 

a large and cumbersome animal on the deck of a shrimp boat. The use 

industry is not expected to reduce leatherback captures and 

TEDs are generally incapable of passing adult leatherbacks 
through t e TED exit opening. Other commercial fisheries, particularly long line fisheries, 

are know to capture leatherbacks but quantitative data on capture, mortality and injury 

rates are 1 ot available. 

Leatherbacks, are vulnerable to boat collisions and strikes particularly 

near shore waters. Over the years at Sandy Point NWR and other 

beaches, turtles have frequently shown up with what resemble 

Florida, 17.4 percent of all stranded leatherbacks had evidence of 

damage. It is unknown whether the 'injuries occurred ante- or 

degree any ante-mortem injuries may have contributed to an 

Open ocean collisions by large ships are most likely not noticzed 

Development Transportation and Storage: Experimental and field 

et al. (1 986) indicate that marine turtles would be at substantial 

an oil spill or large amounts of tar in the environment. 

indicate that the respiration, skin, some aspects of blood 

and salt gland function of marine turtles are significantly 

Spills in the vicinity of nesting beaches are of special 

adults, incubating egg clutches (Fritts and McGehee, 

risk. Anywhere that shipping or petroleum processing 

nesting beach, the potential exists for an oil spill or 

Oil is directly upwind from Sandy Point NWR. While 

beach, there have not been any severe problems to 

the marine environment during pumping of bilges 

information on debris ingestion, Balazs (1 9t35) 

prevalent type of abiotic debris ingested by 

conservation Accomplishments 

Pollution: 

sources are 

in turtles 

quantified 

discharge 

distillery. 

effect, if 

Co servation efforts for the leatherback have greatly improved since it was 

federally li ted as endangered on June 2, 1970. During the 1 970ns, nest survey and 

protection efforts were generally sporadic and did little to reduce the widespread egg 

poaching n U.S. Caribbean beaches. Beginning in 1981, however, intensive nest survey 

and prote tion efforts were initiated on the single most important leatherback nesting 

beach in t e U.S. Caribbean, Sandy Point, St. Croix. Prior to this the majority of the 1'50 

to 250 ne 1 tsdeposited annually were lost to poaching or erosion. Now overall hatch 

The effects of pollutants resulting from industrial agricultural or residential 

difficult to evaluate. Pesticides, heavy metals and PCB's have been detected 

(including eggs), but levels which result in adverse effects have not be!en 

(Nelson, 1988). Sandy Point NWR is downcurrent from the Cruzan Rum 

of "rum slopsn which contains the by products and wastes from the rum 

This discharge chronically affects the water around Sandy Point NWR. What 

any, this has on either adults or hatchlings is unknown. 
50 to 60 percent in most years. The FWS in cooperation with 

similar measures on the other main U.S. Caribbean leatherback 

Culebra in 1984. Prior to the intensive nighttime patrolling, a high 

on this island were poached. Overall hatch success is inow 

in most years. Nest survey and protection efforts occur on 

beaches of lesser but still significant importance suclh as 

Humacao, and Luquillo beaches in Puerto Rico. In 

collected in conjunction with loggerhead nesting 

to mid-May. While a portion of the leatherback 

loggerhead and green turtle surveys, most 

reported because of intensive public use of 

with the basic information on nest numbers, clutch size, and hatclhing 

Sandy Point and Culebra projects have included additional studies of the 

and provided information on intra- and inter-nesting frequency, 

turtle size and weight, diving behavior, pre-reproductive 

and expected hatchling sex ratio, depredation rates, nest site 

In 1982, 776 acres of land on lsla Culebra, including Playas Resaca and Brava, 

were tra sferred to Culebra NWR. In 1984 the FWS purchased the 2.4 km long 

leatherb ck nesting beach at Sandy Point, St.' Croix, establishing Sandy Point NINR. 

These ac ions .ensure the long time protection of the most important leatherback nesting 

beaches in the USVI and Puerto Rico. although neither area is immune from external 

threats s 1 ch as light pollution. 

ordinances designed to control light pollution on nesting beaches have 

9 counties and over 20 towns or cities on Florida's east coast. In the 

Zone Management Commissions have imposed lighting and monitoiring 

being built adjacent to nesting beaches (C. Ehle-Jewet, pers. 

illegal to drive vehicles or ride horses on beaches in the USVI. 

of the State of Florida approved a beach armoring policy on 

restricts armoring (seawalls, rip-rap, revetments, groins, 

by a 5-year return interval storm event and slows 

Recent reviews of sea turtle conservation efforts 

in Hopkins-Murphy (1 988) and Possardt (1 991 1. 

1980's fishery regulations were amended in Puerto Rico to ban nets 

inch mesh in an effort to protect marine turtles. In 1985, regulations 

management and regulation of endangered species in Puerto Flico 

assessable up to $5,000. While USVI has no restrictions on net 

marine turtles is illegal and fishing with set nets has virtually 

ceased. 
of regulatory measures have been implemented by several governmerltal 

increased protection for leatherbacks or their habitat. On December 

States ratified Optional Annex V of the International Convention for 

from Ships, also known as the MARPOL Protocol. Annex V 

all plastic wastes, including plastic packaging materials snd 

at sea. Not only does this mark the first effort in United States 

of plastic debris in the oceans, but the ratification of Annex V 

force internationally. According to United States law, it is 

size to dump plastic trash in the oceans, bays, rivers and 

United States (08Hara et al., 1988). 

tantial effort is being made by government and non-government agencies 

dividuals to increase public awareness of sea turtle conservation issues. 

ate agencies and private conservation organizations such as the Center for 

vation, Greenpeace and National Audubon Society, have produced and 

riety of audio-visual aids and printed materials about sea turtles. These 

let on the various types of light fixtures and ways of screening lights, to 

cts on hatchlings (Raymond, 1984b1, the brochure "Attention Beach 

t" bumper stickers and decals, a coloring book, video tapes, slideltspe 

lor identification posters of the eight species of sea turtles, and a 

Florida Power and Light Company also has produced a booklet (Van 

h general information on sea turtles. In the USVI, the St. Croix 

ociation, the University of the Virgin Islands Extension Service, 'the 

actively involved in circulating newsletters and information packages, 

de shows and seminars. EARTHWATCH-supported projects in Puerto 

I have involved many people in sea turtle conservation efforts. These 

oint NWR, St. Croix, and Culebra, Puerto Rico, have both brought a 

n to this species and have generated high levels of local involvement 

0th locations, the general public has become aware of the problems 

nd in general has developed protectionist attitudes, in contrast to 

USVI school children are being introduced to the problems that sea turtles 

in which people can help them. Problems associated with disposal of 

have also been brought to the public's attention via news releasles, 

and television programs. In Puerto Rico, presentations on 

projects are made at all school levels from kindergarten to 

coast of Puerto Rico and ih Culebra have involved many 

volunteers, the Chelonia Society, Boy Scouts, 4-H 
PART II. RECOVERY 

A: ~ecdvery Objectives 

The U.S. population of leatherbacks can be considered for delisting if the follo\~ing 

conditio I s are met: 

1) T e adult female population increases over the next 25 years, as evidenced by a 

s atistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico, St. 

C f oix, USVI, and along the east coast of Florida. 

sting habitat encompassing at least 75 percent of nesting activity in USVI, 

Rico and Florida is in public ownership. 

3) A)I priority one tasks have been successfully implemented. 

B: stepbown Outline and Narrative 

1. ~rotdct and manage habitats. 

1 1. protect and manage nesting habitats. 

development has already destroyed or degraded many miles of nesting 

in the Southeast, Puerto Rico and the USVI. Development pressures are 

the cumulative impacts will result in increased degradation or 

estruction of nesting habitat. This could eventually lead to a significant 

decline if not effectively combated. 

1 1 1. Ensure beach replenishment projects are compatible with maintaining good 

quality nesting habitat. 

Beach nourishment can improve nesting habitat in areas of severe erosion 

and is a preferred alternative to beach armoring. The quality of material 

should be similar to that on local natural beaches. 

1 1 1 1. Implement and evaluate tilling as a means of softening compacted 

beaches 

Poor-quality material deposited on nesting beaches can result in 

increased false crawls, aberrant nests, increased digging times for 

nesting females, and in some cases, broken eggs from cluttches 

deposited in too shallow an egg chamber. Where bleach 

compaction exceeds local natural conditions, tilling to a depth of 

at least one meter should be used to soften beaches. The 

effectiveness of tilling in softening beaches should also be fully 
evaluated by the COE to determine the persistence of beach 

softening, frequency of tilling required and the best mechanical 

method for beach softening. 

1 1 12. Evaluate the relationship between sand characteristics (including 

aragonite) and hatch success, hatchling sex ratios and nestiing 

behavior. 

Gas diffusion could be affected by sand grain shape, size, and 

compaction, and thus alter hatch success. Sand color alnd 

moisture influence temperature and can affect hatchling sex 

determination. The effect of importing non-native materials such 

as aragonite to United States beaches for beach replenishment 

introduces additional unknowns which could affect hatchlings a~nd 

should be discouraged until fully evaluated. 

1 1 13. Re-establish dunes and native vegetation. 

Dune restoration and revegetation with native plants should be! a 

requirement of all renourishment projects. This will enhance 

beach stability and nesting habitat and require fewer replenishment 

activities. 

11 14. Evaluate sand transfer systems as an alternative to beach 

replenishment. 

Sand transfer systems can diminish the necessity for frequent 

beach replenishment and thereby reduce disruption of nesting 

activities and eliminate sand compaction. The construction and 

operation of the systems must be carefully evaluated by the COE 

to ensure important nearshore habitats are not degraded or sea 

turtles injured or destroyed. 

Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from sea walls, revetments, sand 

bags or other erosion control measures. 

Seawalls and revetments have already destroyed or degraded many miles 

of nesting habitat on the southeast Atlantic coast and Puerto Rico. Beach 

armoring still occurs illegally or through devices such as sandbags which 

are still allowed. The filling and burial of long plastic bags to protect 

coastal property is a common practice in Florida. Buried bags exacerbate 

erosion when uncovered by storm events and prevent nesting when 

uncovered or buried too close to the sand surface. 
1 121. Evaluate current laws on beach armoring and strengthen if 

necessary. 

Regulations prohibiting or discouraging some forms of beach 

armoring now exist in Florida and USVI. FDNR, VIDPNR and 

PRDNR should review current regulations related to beach 

construction and ensure seawalls, revetments, sandbags and otlher 

armoring measures contributing to the degradation of nesting 

habitat are prohibited. 

1 1 22. Ensure laws regulating coastal construction and beach armoring (are 

enforced. 

Illegal sand mining and construction in the maritimelterrestrial zane 

in Puerto Rico and the USVI is a major contributor to beach 

degradation. VIDPNR and PRDNR must frequently monitor beaches 

and maintain strict enforcement when violations are observed. 

When illegal beach armoring occurs appropriate regulatory agencies 

must take effective action to ensure the perpetrator removes the 

material and restores the habitat. Illegal beach armoring can 

cumulatively cause significant degradation of nesting habitat. 

1 123. Ensure failed erosion control structures are removed. 

Failed erosion control structures such as uncovered plastic bags or 

tubes and fragmented concrete or wooden structures degra,de 

nesting habitat and deter nesting activities. FDNR, VIDPNR and 

PRDNR should ensure that failed structures are removed from 

nesting beaches. 

13. Identify and ensure long-term protection of important nesting beaches. 

Coastal development is degrading nesting habitat and public use is causing 

significant disturbance to nesting turtles in some areas. Key nesting 

beaches in Florida and Puerto Rico in particular should be identified and 

appropriate measures taken to protect them. Of particular concern are the 

privately owned uplands adjacent to Brava and Resaca beaches on Culebra 

which are the second most important leatherback nesting beaches within 

the United States. Long-term protection should be accomplished throuigh 

acquisition, or conservation easements by FWS, VIDPNR, PRDNR and 

FDNR. 
flrotect marine habitat. 

1-eatherbacks utilize both coastal and pelagic (open water) habitats. These 

t-abitats have been severely abused and degraded. Among the factors 

c~ontributing to this trend are coastal development and industrialization, increased 

c~ommercial and recreational vessel activities, open ocean contaminant dumping, 

river and estuarine pollution, channelization, offshore oil and gas development, 

c~ommercial and recreational fishing activities. If present trends continue, the 

umulative loss of suitable Habitat could reduce the likelihood of recovery of the 

pecies. 

1 21. Identify important foraging and other marine habitats and ensure long-torm 

protection. 

Leatherbacks are known to feed in areas of high jellyfish (Aurelia cyanea, 

Stomolophus , Physalia) concentrations. Feeding areas extend into the 

temperate north Atlantic and also include pantropical waters. In the 

absence of migrational and distributional information, important foraging 

areas and migration routes for the leatherbackare unknown. Research is 

needed to determine if foraging areas for this species can be identified. 

This research should be conducted in conjunction with other research 

needs outlined in 221 1, 221 2, and 221 3. NMFS, RNS and coastal 

resource agencies should support this research and implement measures 

to protect key foraging habitats as appropriate. 

1 22. Prevent degradation of habitat from oil and gas developments, refining iand 

trans-shipment activities. 

Oil refinery activities along the coasts of Puerto Rico and the USVl 

represent a threat to marine habitats as a result of vessel traffic, ves:;els 

cleaning oil compartments, pumping bilges, oil spills associated with 

transfer of oil from tankers to onshore facilities and spills. Oil activities 

may negatively impact sea turtle habitat during exploration, development, 

production and abandonment phases. Of particular concern are impacts 

of oil spills, drilling mud disposal, disposal of other toxic materials, pipelline 

networks associated with oil and gas fields, onshore production facilities, 

increased vessel traffic, domestic garbage disposal and explosive removal 

of obsolete platforms. MMS, COE and the oil and gas industry should take 

appropriate actions to ensure that known sources of pollution and toxic 

waste disposal are eliminated. Additional precautions are needed to 

prevent oil spills. The Coast Guard should ensure that its strike teams 

maintain a high state of readiness and are knowledgeable of the highlest 

priority nesting beaches for protection in the event of an oil spill. 
123. Prevent degradation of coastal habitat from industrial and sewcage 

effluents. 

Increased industrial and urban development in the U. S. Caribbean is 

creating an industrial waste and sewage disposal problem. Many 

industrial wastes are being dumped offshore and sewage is being pumped 

several miles offshore through pipelines. Upstream water treatment plants 

could compound this problem if operational standards are not maintained. 

These effluents may alter water quality such that the suitability of some 

marine environments for foraging, resting, development, or mating are 

negatively affected. The number of vital functions provided by coastal 

marine habitats affected by these effluents is unknown. EPA, EOB, the 

appropriate Territorial environmental quality agency, PRDNR, VIDPNR, F\NS 

and NMFS should take the appropriate measures to insure that wa~ter 

quality standards are enforced. 

1124. identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate actions. 

Coastal habitats may be subject to other threats which would render them 

unsuitable for leatherback populations. PRDNR, VIDPNR, FWS, NMFS and 

other appropriate agencies should be alert to the general status of coastal 

habitats, identify threats and take appropriate actions. 

:edt and manage population. 

~botect and manage population on nesting beach. 

poaching, tidal inundation, artificial lighting and human activities on 

diminish reproductive success. Monitoring of nesting activities 

and evaluate appropriate nest protection measures and 

population. 

Nesting surveys are conducted annually on the two major nesting beaches 

in the U.S. Caribbean (Sandy Point NWR and Culebra) which account for 

approximately 50 percent of the leatherback nesting activity in the Uniited 

States. Coverage on other beaches may vary from year to year. Surveys 

in Florida do not routinely cover the first 2 months of the leatherback 

nesting season. Consequently, FWS, FDNR, PRDNR and VlDFW should 

develop a standardized nest survey protocol to ensure the collection of 

consistent and meaningful nesting trend data. Elements of the survey 

scheme should include survey period, frequency, selection of index survey 

beaches representative of the regional nesting distribution and training for 

surveyors. 

21 1. Monitor nesting activity trends on important nesting beaches with 

standardized surveys. 
Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest protection 

measures. 

Nest and hatching success on important nesting beaches should be 

evaluated. Appropriate nest protection measures should be implemented 

by FWS, FDNR, PRDNR and VlDFW to ensure at least 60 percent hatch 

rate, a rate commensurate with natural success. Efforts should be 

directed at reducing effects of inundation, beach erosion, livestock, foot 

traffic and poaching on hatching success. Nest inundation can diminish 

hatch success depending on frequency, duration and developmental stage 

of embryos. Beach erosion problems require nest relocation to higher and 

safer beach zones. In all cases the least manipulative method to enhance 

hatch success should be employed to avoid interfering with know11 or 

unknown natural biological processes. Artificial incubation should be 

avoided. Nest protection measures should always require hatchling release 

on the night of hatching. Until recovery is ensured, however, project:; on 

key nesting beaches such as Palm Beach County (Florida), Brava and 

Resaca (Culebra, PR), Sandy Point NWR and Manchenil (St. Croix) and 

Humacao and Piiiones (Puerto Rico), should strive for a higher rate of 

hatching success. FWS, FDNR, PRDNR and VlDFW should assess 

hatchingtemergence success on important beaches and develop 

recommendations for nest protection as appropriate. 

Reduce effects of light pollution on hatchlings and nesting females. 

Hatchling sea turtles orient primarily to the blue-green wave lengths to find 

the ocean and consequently many artificial lights disorient or misorient 

hatchlings, indirectly leading to high hatchling mortality. Recent studies 

have also demonstrated that artificial lights significantly deter nesting 

activities. 

2 1 3 1 . Determine effects of artificial lighting on nesting females and 

emerging hatchlings. 

While phototropic orientation is known to be the primary hatchling 

sea finding mechanism, these findings are based on research with 

almost every other sea turtle species but the leatherback. The 

spectral sensitivity of leatherbacks must be known to understand 

species specific nuances which may significantly influence 

management strategies for solving light pollution problems. Also 

orientation mechanisms in the marine environment need further 

clarification. If light is the primary determinant, lighting from 

coastal development could be altering hatchling dispersal patterns 

on some nesting beaches and lowering survivorship. MIS, FCINR, 

VlDFW and PRDNR should support appropriate research. 
2132. Implement, enforce and evaluate lighting regulations or other 

lighting control measures where appropriate. 

Where lighting regulations have been adopted and enforced, 

hatchling disorientation and misorientation have been drasticially 

reduced. All coastal counties and communities with leatherblack 

nesting should adopt regulations March through September. 

Increased development activities in the Fredriksted area, St. Croix, 

is of particular concern because of the high density nesting beach 

at Sandy Point NWR. Prevailing coastal development trends 

represent an ever increasing threat to areas of high nesting 

activities in Puerto Rico. FWS and NMFS should encourage and 

provide necessary technical information to Commonwealth and 

Territorial resource agencies to enact appropriate lighting 

regulations. State, Commonwealth and Territorial resource 

agencies should adopt available guidelines and regulations. 

21 33. Enforce take provisions of Endangered Species Act and evaluate 

need for Federal lighting regulations. 

Enforce take provisions of Endangered Species Act of 1 !373 

relative to hatchling disorientation and misorientation. Where 

State, Commonwealth or Territorial lighting ordinances have not 

been implemented or are ineffective, Federal regulations shoulcl be 

promulgated under the authority of the Endangered Species Act on 

the most important nesting beaches. 

Eliminate vehicular traffic on nesting beaches during nesting and hatching 

season. 

During the nesting season non-mechanized beach cleaning alternatives 

should be implemented. The adverse effects from vehicular traffic and 

mechanized beach cleaning practices on nests and hatchlings may be 

severe. Potential impacts may include sand compaction, alteration of nest 

site micro-environment by sand removal, and crushing hatchlings prior to 

emergence. Vehicular traffic and mechanized beach cleaning practices 

should be prohibited seasonally on key nesting areas by PRDNR, VIDF'NR 

and FDNR. 

Ensure beach replenishment and coastal construction activities are planined 

to avoid disruption of nesting and hatching activities. 

These activities can cause significant disruption of nesting activities during 

the nesting season when viewed cumulatively over the nesting range. 

Nest relocation can result in lowered hatch success and altered hatchling 

sex ratios and therefore is not an acceptable alternative to altering the 
timing of projects. The COE, FWS, and appropriate State, Commonweallth 

or Territorial agencies should ensure beach replenishment and other beach 

construction activities are not permitted during the nesting season on 

locally or regionally important nesting beaches. 

Prevent waste disposal on nesting beaches. 

Human encroachment on coastal areas is decreasing the number of 

suitable nesting beaches for the leatherback. This problem is compounded 

if remote, but suitable nesting beaches are used as garbage dump sites as 

occurs on some U.S. Caribbean beaches. Garbage of various kinds and 

shapes can discourage nesting, inflict injuries and obstruct hatchlings as 

they crawl towards the ocean. Additionally, garbage will enhance tlhe 

proliferation of stray pets, rats and mongooses which could prey on 

hatchlings. Measures to discourage this practice should be taken (see 34) 

and enforced by the appropriate Commonwealth or Territorial agencies. 

Ensure adequate law enforcement activities prevent poaching and 

harassment. 

Poaching can be a significant source of egg loss on some nesting beaches 

without law enforcement deterrence. Also, harassment can adversely 

affect nesting turtles by causing the potential displacement of nesting 

females to unsuitable beaches. FWS and NMFS should work closely with 

PRDNR, VIDPNR, and NPS to intensify law enforcement activities in knowrn 

problem areas in the U. S. Caribbean to curb the incidence of poaching arid 

harassment. 

Determine natural hatchling sex ratios at selected nesting beaches. 

It is well documented that incubation temperature determines hatchlir~g 

sex. Sex ratios of hatchlings on natural beaches throughout the nesting 

range should be determined over several years in order to evalualte 

management programs which could be altering natural sex ratios. FWS, 

PRDNR and VlDFW should support the necessary research and evaluate all 

nest relocation projects to ensure natural sex ratios are not altered. 

Research should include establishment of temperature transects on the 

appropriate nesting beach. A standardized protocol for the temperature 

monitoring using a non-sacrificial technique should be developed by FWS, 

Commonwealth or Territorial resource agencies and adopted where 

relocation is done. 
19. Determine genetic relationship of U.S. Caribbean populations to other 

major nesting populations. 

Due to the migratory habits of leatherbacks, long-term management and 

conservation strategies necessitate that the genetic relationships of LI. S. 

Caribbean populations to other populations be ascertained. The degree of 

relatedness, perhaps an indicator of gene flow, is essential for defining 

management units and evaluating recovery objectives, and assessing the 

viability of U. S. Caribbean populations. FDNR, PRDNR, VlDW and FWS 

should fund this research. 

rotect and manage populations in the marine environment. 

lanagement and protection of sea turtles in the marine environment is a difficult 

~sk. The foremost problem in management and conservation of sea turtles is 

le lack of basic biological information. To adequately protect and enha~nce 

~rvival of sea turtles, we must know where they occur, in what numbers;, at 

,hat times and what factors contribute to mortality. As sources of mortality. are 

entified, steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate their impacts on populations. 

21. Determine distribution, abundance and status in the marine environment. 

To assess threats and formulate appropriate protection measures, basic 

information is needed as to when, where, and in what abundance turtles 

may occur over the various stages of their life cycles. In the case of sea 

turtles which exhibit great longevity, it is important to protect all age 

classes so that a sufficient number of individuals survive to reach sexual. 

maturity. 

221 1. Determine hatchling dispersal patterns, juvenile distribution and 

abundance. 

The distribution and fate of hatchlings after reaching the ocealn is 

unknown. Juveniles may occur throughout Caribbean waters as ..$ 

indicated by specimens salvaged in southeastern Puerto Rico (29 

cm curved carapace) and Barbados (1 9 cm straightline carapace). 

Knowledge of hatchling dispersal patterns, and distribution and 

abundance of juveniles, would facilitate the development: of 

appropriate conservation measures to enhance survival in these! life 

stages. PRDNR, VIDFW, NMFS and FWS should fund appropriate 

research. 
22 1 2. Determine migratory pathways, distribution and internesting 

seasonal movements. 

Nesting migrations and subsequent dispersal of post-nesting 

females has been studied principally through tagging on nesting 

beaches. Movements and distributions of adult males, which miay 

or may not migrate with the females, have not been studied. 

Female turtles are known to return to nest in the same general 

areas at 2, 3, and 4 year intervals throughout their reproductive 

lives. Mechanisms which allow turtles to navigate over great 

distances and to exhibit nesting beach fidelity are poorly 

understood. Research is needed to determine the migratory 

pathways of sea turtles, and habitat use and internesting season~al 

movemeunts. In the case of the leatherback, long-distance 

movement studies will require satellite technology. Research is 

also needed to determine how turtles navigate and what underlying 

factors (e.g., olfactory, magnetic, visual) control this ability. 

NMFS, COE, MMS, FWS, PRDNR and VlDFW and other interested 

resource agencies should fund appropriate research. 

2213. Determine growth rates, age of sexual maturity and life stage 

survivorship rates. 

Information on survivorship rates is an essential component of a 

comprehensive sea turtle conservation plan. Available information 

suggests that sea turtle population dynamics are very sensitive 'to 

survival rates during the late juvenile and sub-adult life stages. 

Estimating these rates is an extremely difficult task, particularly f'or 

the leatherback. To achieve this objective, knowledge of life 

stages and the establishment of age to sexual maturity is 

necessary to define meaningful demographic units in a populatiom. 

An invaluable tool for this purpose is the study of growth rates in 

wild populations. In addition, the comparative study of growth 

rates may also serve as an indicator of habitat suitability and 

quality. The development of field techniques and design (of 

research projects to study growth rates, ascertain age of sexual 

maturity, and estimate life stagelage survivorship rates is needed 

to monitor and achieve sea turtle recovery actions and objectives. 

FWS, NMFS, FDNR, PRDNR and VlDFW should support thiis 

research. 

221 4. Quantify present or potential threats to adults and juveniles along 

migratory routes, internesting habitat and on foraging grounds. 

Little is known about the foraging grounds of the U. S. Caribbean 

leatherback nesting population. Threats to internesting {or 
migrating turtles 'are virtually unknown because there is l~ittle 

information on their distribution, habitat use, pathways or the 

mechanisms of migration. Before action can be taken to eliminate 

threats to sea turtles, information on factors affecting the survival 

of turtle stocks must be available. NMFS, FWS, COE, MMS and 

other State, Commonwealth, or Territorial resource agencies should 

fund needed research. 

221 5. Evaluate effects of industrial and sewage effluents on populatiion. 

Ever increasing amounts of industrial and sewage effluents are 

reaching marine environments. These effluents may alter winter 

quality such that the suitability of some marine environments for 

foraging, resting, development, or mating are negatively affected. 

The number of vital functions provided by coastal marine habitats 

affected by these effluents and which ones are most sensitive is 

unknown. This information is necessary to implement marine 

habitat protection measures to ensure the recovery of the species. 

Research is needed to identify the composition and quantities of 

effluents gaining access to marine environments and what impa~cts 

these effluents are having on sea turtle habitat resources (and 

quality. NMFS, COE, MIS, PRDNR, VIDPNR and other appropriiate 

State resource agencies should support needed research. 

Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Leatherbacks are incidentally taken by several commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Fisheries known or suspected to incidentally capture 

leatherbacks include those deploying bottom trawls, off-bottom trawls, 

purse seines, bottom longlines, hook and line, gill nets, drift nets, tra~ps, 

haul seines, pound nets, beach seines, and surface longlines. 

2221. Implement measures to reduce capture and mortality from 

commercial shrimping vessels. 

Although turtle excluder devices are now routinely required isnd 

used by the shrimp industry, they do not exclude adult 

leatherbacks or large sub-adults. At times large numbers of 

leatherbacks are attracted to high densities of jelly fish on heavily 

fished shrimping grounds. NMFS has estimated about 640 

leatherbacks are captured annually with a mortality rate of 25 

percent. Given the enormous weight and size of these animals it 

is extremely difficult for even the most conscientious fishermen to 

handle and release live animals without some injury or trauma to 

the animal. Consequently, mortality is likely much higher than the 

drowning data suggests. NMFS and appropriate coastal St:ate 
resource agencies should identify shrimpinglleatherback spatial and 

temporal conflicts and develop a strategy to reduce incidental 

captures. 

2222. Evaluate the extent of incidental catch due to hook and line, d~rift 

net, gill netting, and other fisheries related mortality. 

Although it is known that leatherbacks are incidentally taken in 

various fishing operations, the magnitude of this mortality is 

unknown. This is particularly true in the U. S. Caribbean where 

nesting females gather seasonally and in the Northeast where 

leatherbacks are known to get entangled in lobster trap gear. 

Monitoring efforts are needed to determine the extent of incidental 

catch by fisheries type in U. S. coastal waters. FWS, NMI'S, 

PRDNR, VlDFW and other resources agencies should support 

initiation of needed monitoring efforts. 

2223. Promulgate and enforce appropriate regulations to reduce hook and 

line, drift net, gill netting and other fisheries related mortality. 

Once the extent and types of fisheries associated with incidental 

catch are identified, NMFS in conjunction with PRDNR and VIDkW 

should promulgate appropriate regulations and enforce them to 

reduce this mortality. 

2224. Maintain carcass stranding network. 

Most accessible beaches are surveyed for stranded sea turtles by 

volunteer or contract personnel. Through the sea turtle stranding 

and salvage network, stranding data are received and summariiced 

by the NMFS Miami Laboratory. These data provide an index of 

sea turtle mortality and basic biological information. NMFS and 

FWS should continue systematic stranding surveys of index areas 

and support and augment the network. Periodic review of ,the 

efficacy of surveys should be conducted. 

Prevent oil spills, and monitor and prevent adverse impacts of oil spills and 

gas activities. 

Oil can alter respiration, severely damage skin, interfere with or stop :salt 

gland function and ultimately lead to the death of sea turtles. 
2231. Determine effects of oil and oil dispersants on all life stages. 

Oil spills resulting from blowouts, ruptured pipelines or tanker 

accidents could have a major impact on the recovery of sea turtles. 

As evidenced by the recent Exxon catastrophe in Alaska, Fedleral 

and industry ability to respond to a major oil spill can be woefully 

inadequate. It is essential that we have knowledge of the effects 

of oil and oil dispersants on all sea turtle life stages to allow 

adequate assessment of risks and implementation of contingency 

plans should a major oil spill occur. The effects of oil and oil 

dispersants have never been studied in leatherbacks, a species 

which may be extremely sensitive to such contaminants. MfdS, 

COE and the oil and gas industry should fund appropriate resealrch. 

2232. Determine sea turtle distribution and seasonal use of marine 

habitats associated with oil and gas development areas. 

Oil and gas activities occur over vast areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

and southern North Atlantic. Recent technological advances have 

made it possible to conduct exploration and development activities 

in deeper waters. Despite the continuing offshore movement of 

the industry, little effort has been expended in determining 

distribution, abundance and seasonality of various life stages of 

leatherbacks in offshore waters. MMS and COE should fund 

needed research to evaluate the effects of oil and gas activities on 

sea turtles in offshore waters. 

2233. Ensure impacts to sea turtles are adequately addressed du~ring 

planning of oil and gas developments. 

In assessing the potential impacts of oil and gas activities, it is 

necessary to look beyond the exploration, development, production 

and abandonment of single wells, and consider the industry i3~ a 

whole. In the Gulf of Mexico alone, there are 4,500 existing 

offshore structures and thousands more projected over the next 

twenty years. These structures are linked by miles of underwater 

pipelines, and are supported by fleets of vessels and aircraft. 

Production and storage facilities onshore supply refined products 

for tanker transport and land transport throughout the coun~try. 

The chances of isolated accidents, when considering the existing 

infrastructure, are very high. Additionally, the cumulative impiscts 

of chronic discharges from thousands of independent structures 

could be significant. Explosive removal of structures during the 

abandonment phase of these activities has also been identifield as 

a potential source of mortality to sea turtles. NMFS, MMS, COE 
and the oil and gas industry should take whatever precautions are 

necessary to avoid impacts to sea turtles. 

Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of persistent marine 

debris. 

The ingestion of marine debris and the entanglement of marine,organisrns 

in discarded nets, monofilament lines and ropes has received considerable 

attention in recent years and may be an increasing source of mortality to 

all life history stages. 

2241. Evaluate the extent of entanglement and ingestion of persistemt 

marine debris. 

Limited information on the frequency of entanglement and 

ingestion of marine debris by sea turtles is available. Stranding 

data and necropsies have provided evidence that suggests sorne 

leatherback mortality has resulted from ingestion of debris. 

Additionally, stranded turtles have been entangled in lost or 

discarded netting, monofilament lines and ropes. NMFS, FWS and 

EPA should expand efforts to document cases of entanglement and 

ingestion, the extent of marine debris in U. S. waters, sources of 

these contaminants and the impacts of these materials on various 

life stages of leatherback populations. 

2242. Evaluate the effects of ingestion of persistent marine debris (on 

health and viability of sea turtles. 

In addition to mortality resulting from ingestion of plastic:^, 

hydrocarbons or other toxic substances, debilitating non-lettral 

impacts are possible. Research is needed to evaluate the long-term 

effects of ingestion of marine debris, particularly with regard to 

early life stages. NMFS, MMS, COE and EPA should fund this 

research. 

2243. Formulate and implement appropriate measures to reduce or 

eliminate persistent marine debris in the marine environment. 

Marine debris may originate from land or sea, primarily throusgh 

careless disposal of non-biodegradable refuse. Suspected sources 

of these materials are large transport vessels pumping bilges and 

discarding garbage, commercial and recreational fishermen, oil and 

gas platforms, beachgoers, boaters, and cruiseliners. To eliminaite 

the problem, the public must be informed of the long-term 

consequences of using the oceans as a garbage dump. Poiint 

sources of pollution must be identified and eliminated by EPA, 
Coast Guard, State and Federal agencies. Appropriate agencies 

should vigorously enforce MARPOL regulations. NMFS and State, 

Commonwealth, and Territorial resource agencies sholuld 

promulgate regulations governing abandonment of fishing gear and 

impose severe penalties for discarding these materials. 

Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs. 

Sea turtle researchers commonly tag turtles encountered during their 

research projects, and usually maintain independent tagging data bastes. 

The lack of centralization for administering these data bases often resl~lts 

in confusion when tagged turtles are recaptured and delays in reporting 

recaptures to the person originally tagging the turtle. 

225 1 . Centralize tag series records. 

A centralized tag series data base is needed to ensure that 

recaptured tagged turtles can be promptly reported to persons who 

initially tagged the animal. The tag series data base would include 

listing of all tag series that have been placed on sea turtles in the 

wild, including the name and address of the researcher placing 

these tags on turtles. This would eliminate problems in 

determining which researcher is using which tag series or type! of 

tags, and would preclude unnecessary delays in reporting of tag 

returns. NMFS and/or FWS should establish and maintain this data 

base. 

2252. Centralize turtle tagging records. 

In addition to the need for a centralization of tag series records, 

there are advantages in developing a centralized turtle tagging 

record data base. Such a data base would allow all turtle 

researchers to trace unfamiliar tag series or types to their source, 

and also to have immediate access to important biological 

information collected at the time of original capture. The major 

disadvantage is that this data base would require frequent editing 

and updating, and would be costly and somewhat time consuming 

to maintain. It would also make it possible for unethical 

researchers to exploit work of others, while providing no 

guarantees that such contributions would be acknowledged. 

NMFS and FWS should determine whether such a data base can 

be established and is feasible to maintain. 
2/26. Ensure proper care of rehabilitating sea turtles in captivity. 

I Leatherbacks have never been kept in captivity successfully over the 

long-term, and thus proper care standards and procedures are not 

available. In the absence of such information, but in the unusual situation 

of being confronted with the need of providing rehabilitation facilities for 

a leatherback, standards and procedures followed for other sea turt:les 

species should be adopted until more appropriate ones are developed. 

2261. Develop standards for care and maintenance including diet, water 

quality, tank size and treatment of injury and disease. 

None of these requirements have been scientifically evaluated to 

determine the best possible captive conditions for leatherback sea 

turtles. The FWS and NMFS should support the necessary 

research to develop these criteria, particularly relating to diet and 

the treatment of injury. These criteria should be published and 

required for any rehabilitation facility permit. FWS, NMFS, and 

appropriate State, Commonwealth or Territorial resources agency 

representatives should inspect permitted facilities at least annuially 

for compliance with permit requirements. 

/ 2262. Designate rehabilitation facilities. 

FWS and NMFS in coordination with the appropriate State, 

Commonwealth or Territorial agencies should designate 

rehabilitation facilities for Atlantic and Gulf Coast States, and the 

U. S. Caribbean. Designation should be based on availability, of 

veterinary personnel with expertise or experience in reptilian care 

and the institutions ability to comply with care and maintenance 

standards developed in step 2261 above. Each facility should be 

inspected by a team including a NMFS, FWS and appropriate State, 

Commonwealth or Territorial resource agency representative prior 

to its designation as a rehabilitation facility. Inspections should1 be 

conducted at least annually thereafter. 

publid information and education. 

conservation requires long-term public support over a large geographic area. 

must be factually informed of the issues particularly when conservaltion 

conflict with human activities such as commercial fisheries, recreational 

development, and public use of nesting beaches. Public education is 

upon which a long-term conservation program will succeed or fail. 
evelop and provide slide programs and information leaflets on sea turtle 

nservation for the general public and for special interest groups. 

e FWS has developed a bi-lingual slide tape program on sea turtle 

nservation. The FWS should keep the program current and available for all 

blic institutions. The FWS and State, Commonwealth and Territorial resource 

should continually develop, update and supply the public with 

brochures on sea turtle ecology and conservation needs. 

evelop brochure on recommended lighting modifications or measures to reduce 

32. 4 h tchling disorientation and misorientation. 

require lights be shut off or modified to prevent direct 

on the nesting beach. ow ever, it is not always clear what types of 

screening or shading work best. The FWS, NMFS and Sta,te, 

resource agencies should jointly develop, publish 

a brochure or booklet with recommended lighting fixtures, ligh~ts, 

and operational constraints. 

evelop public service announcements (PSA) regarding the sea turtle 

nservation issues. 

professionally produced public service announcement for radio and TV would . 

tremendous support and reinforcement of the many coastal lighting 

as well as the adverse impacts of waste disposal and entanglement 

stages of sea turtles. It would generate greater support through 

The RNS and State, Commonwealth and Territorial resource 

develop high quality PSAs which could be used throughout the 

S Caribbean. 

34. post information signs at public access points on important nesting beaches. 

Public access points to important nesting beaches provide excellent opportunities 

t inform the public of necessary precautions for compatible public use on ithe 

n sting beach and to develop public support through informational and 

e ucational signs. FDNR, FWS, NPS, PRDNR and VIDPNR should post sr~ch 

e ucational and informational signs on the important nesting beaches as 

a I propriate. 

evelop criteria and recommendations to allow public participation in research 

d recovery activities. 

P ublic participation (primarily observation) in research and recovery activities can 

be a very effective education tool. Criteria must be developed by FWS, NMIFS, 

and State, Commonwealth or Territorial resources agencies to permit sr~ch 
rticipation. Among other things, criteria must address group size, frequerrcy 

visitation and nature of participation. 

4. lnternhtional cooperation. 

atify Protocol to Cartagena Convention concerning specially protected areas ;and 

42' %ildlif e. 

41 . O 

in 

or 

arties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine 

nvironment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) adopted the 

rotocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in January 1990. Annex HI of 

is Protocol prohibits the taking, possession or killing or commercial trade in 

uch species, their eggs, parts or products, and the disturbance of such species, 

articularly during periods of breeding, incubation, estivation or migration, as ell 

other periods of biological stress. All six sea turtle species in the wider 

aribbean, are included under Annex II. Ratification by the 19 parties to the 

onvention will enable the provisions of the Protocol to be implemented within, 

e member countries not entering reservations within 90 days and provide 

eased protection of sea turtles within many of the member countries. The 

S and NMFS should work with the State Department to encourage ratification 

y the United States. 

evelob international agreements to ensure protection of life stages which occur 

foreign waters. 

Leatherbacks are long-distance migrants. Foraging grounds for adults, juveniles 

subadults while largely unknown, almost certainly encompass waters outside 

the United States. Therefore, the long-term preservation of the Florida, Puerto 

co, and USVl nesting populations will require more than protection within 

ited States jurisdiction. Ultimately, a comprehensive leatherback conserva1:ion 

n will have to encompass essential habitats outside of the United States. 

in 

Once these habitat and conservation strategies are identified, the NMFS and PJVS 

conjunction with the State Department should develop coopera1;ive 

international agreementsand programs with the appropriate foreign governments. 
1 LITERATURE CITED 

Ackerman, R. A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea 

turtle I ggs. Amer. ZOO^. 20:575-583. 

. W. 1988. Manchenil Bay leatherback sea turtle research and conservation 

Adamst projec : 1988. Final Report, submitted to USVl Div. Fish Wildl. 17p. 

R., and W. T. Neill. 1957. Another record of the Atlantic leatherbiack, 

chelys coriacea, on the Florida coast. Copeia 1 957: 143-1 44. 

. R. 1970. Studies on the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (L.11, in 

dl West Indies. Biol. Conserv. 2:213-217. 

R., and G. K. Maliphant. 1971. Further studies on sea turtles in Trinidad and 

with a guide to the common species and their hatchlings. Trinidad Field [Vat. 

Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and 

p.387-429. In R. S. Shomura and H. 0. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the 

on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November, 1984, Honolulu, 

Memo. NMFS-SWFC-54. 

A. Keinath, and J. A. Musick. 1989. Distribution of ridley, green and 

turtles in Chesapeake Bay and adjacent waters, p. 201-203. In 

K.L. Eckert and T. H. Richardson (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual 

Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SIEFC 

232. 

. J. 1988. Temperature regimes on Sandy Point, St. Croix, and implications 

of hatchling leatherback sea turtles. Unpubl. M. S. Thesis, Dept. 

Basford, . J., R. L. Brandner, and R. H. Boulon. 1986. Tagging and nesting research on 

leathe back sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Island d , 1986. Annl. Rept. USVl Div. Fish Wildl. 29p. 

Basford, . J., R. L. Brandner, and R. H. Boulon. 1988. Tagging and nesting research on 

leathe back sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Island 1 , 1988. Annl. Rept. USVl Div. Fish Wildl. 32p. 

L. Brandner. 1989. The effect of egg relocation on Dermochelys 

hatchling sex determination on Sandy Point, St. Croix, p.205. In S. A. 

L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual 

on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. 
Bels, V., 

la To 

15(19 

Bickham, 

of cry 

1983: 

Birkenmc 

Inter. 

Bleakney 

Can. F 

Boulon, I 

Atlant 

Boulon, f 

Atlant 

Boulon, I 

p.207 

of the 

Memo 

Boulon, I 

Sea T 

Brahim, I 

and cc 

S. M. 

Towa~ 

of Ma 

Brandner 

leathe 

Island 

Brandner 

on lez 

1989. 

Brongers 

Wet., 

Rimblot-Baly, and J. Lescure. 1988. Croissance et maintien en captivith de 

e Luth, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1 76 1 ). Revue fr. Aquariol. 

)2:59-64. 

W., and J. L. Carr. 1983. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the higher categories 

~diran turtles based on a cladistic analysis of chromosomal data. Copleia 

8-932. 

, E. 1970. Rearing a leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in captivity. 

o. Yearbook 14:204-207. 

. S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England and eastern Canada. 

d Nat. 79: 120-1 28. 

4. 1984. National Report for the United States Virgin Islands to the Western 

Turtle Symposium. July 1983, San Jose, Costa Rica. 

4. 1987. National Report for the United States Virgin Islands to the Western 

Turtle Symposium 11. October 1987, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 

H. 1989. Virgin Island turtle recoveries outside of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

19. In S. A. Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and T. H. Richardson (comp.), Proceedings 

nth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. 

IMFS-SEFC-232. 

i., K. L. Eckert, and S. A. Eckert. 1988. Dermochelys coriacea. (Leatherback 

le) Migration. Herpetol. Rev. 1 9(4):88. 

E. H. Chan, and A. K. Rahman. 1987. An update on the population status 

ervation of the leatherback turtle of Terengganu, p.69-77. In A. Sasekumar, 

bang, and E. L. Chong (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Seminar on 

Conserving Malaysia's Marine Heritage, 28 March 1987. Malaysian Soci~ety 

5 Sciences, University of Malaya. 

I. L., S. J. Basford, and R. H. Boulon. 1987. Tagging and nesting research on 

rck sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

1987. Annl. Rept. USVl Div. Fish Wildl. 30p. 

i. L., S.'J. Basford, and R. H. Boulon, Jr. 1990. Tagging and nesting research 

5rback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, USVI, 

nnl. Rept. USVl Div. Fish Wildl. 30p. 

I, L. D. 1969. Miscellaneous notes on turtles. IIA, IIB. Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. 

nsterdam, C 72(1):76-102. 
a, L. D. 1970. Miscellaneous notes on turtles, Ill. Koninkl. Nederl. Akade~mie 

Amsterdam. Ser. c 73(4):323-335. 

Broward ounty Erosion Prevention District Environmental Quality Control Board. 1987. 

Sea Turtle f Conservation Project, Broward County, Florida, 1987 Report. 26p. 

D. K. 1959. On the status of the Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermocht?lys 

as a visitant to Florida nesting beaches, with natural history notes. Qrt. J. 

Sci. 21 (3):285-291. 

Caldwell, D. K., A. Carr, and T. R. Hellier, Jr. 1956. A nest of the Atlantic leatherback 

turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus), on the Atlantic coast of Florida, witlh a 

summ I ry of American nesting records. Quart. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 18(4):279-284. 

K., and Rathjen, W. F. 1969. Unrecorded West Indian nesting sites for the 

and hawksbill sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea and Eretmocht?lys 

1969: 622-623. 

~ameronl T. H. 1923. Notes on turtles. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 29:299-300. 

1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. 

v. Biol. 1 (2): 1 03- 1 2 1 . 

Carr, A. 

Ithaca, 

Carr, A., A. Meylan, J. Mortimer, K. Bjorndal and T. Carr. 1982. Surveys of sea turtle 

popula I ions and habitats in the Western Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-91. 

1952. Handbook of Turtles. Comstock Pcrbl. Assoc., Cornell Univ. Prtss, 

N.Y., p. xv+ 542. 

nd L. Ogren. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 3: Dermochelys 

Rica. Amer. Mus. Novitates 1958:l-29. 

Jr., and L. H. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. 

turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Am. Nat. Hist. 121:l-48. 

The marine turtles and terrestrial reptiles of Culebra Island. Report to 

Serv. 23p.l +fig. 

Carr, T. { 978b. A survey of marine turtles at Vieques Island. Puerto Rico DNR (unpubl.). 

N. Carr. 1986. Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) copulation. 

Rev. 17(1):24-25. 

., and B. Cintron. 1987. National Report for Puerto Rico to the Western 

Turtle Symposium II. October 1987, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 56p. 
Conley, W J., and B. A. Hoffman. 1987. Nesting activity of sea turtles in Florida, 1979- 

1985. 1 lorida Sci. 50(4): 201 -21 0. 

Daniel, R. S., and K. U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate 

loggerh d ad turtle. J. camp. Physiol. Ps~c~o~. 40:413-420. 

J., D. L. Holland, and J. East. 1990. Thermal and biochemic:al 

of the lipids of the leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: evidence of 

J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 70:33-41. 

la, P. E. P. 1936. The nesting habit of the leathery turtle, Dermochelys 

. Notes, Ceylon J. Sci. B 19(3):33 1-336. 

D. D., and D. A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation 

s to light wavelengths and intensities, p.41. In S. A. Eckert, K. L. Eckert, and 

hardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turitle 

and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232. 

Dodd, C. . 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat and marine turtles. Paper presented at 

Sympo ium: Recovery and Management of Marine Turtles in the Southeast Regioln, 

26-27 1 une 1978, Tampa, Florida. 

1978. Contribution Zi I'Btude de la biologie de Dermochelys coriacea (Linn16) 

Pertuis Charentais. ThBse, Doct. Biol. Anim., Univ. Bordeaux. 1 12p. 

M. 1987. Premier suivi par satellite en Atlantique d'une tortue luth 

C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 304, serie Ill n O 1 5, 1 987:399-402. 

C. P. Whitmore, and N. Mrosovsky. 1985. Masculinization of leatherback 

coriacea hatchlings from eggs incubated in styrofoam boxes. Bid. 

Eckert, K. L. 1987. Environmental unpredictability and leatherback sea turtle 

Dermoc h elys coriacea nest loss. Herpetologica 43(3):3 1 5-323. 

1989. (Draft) WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for the United 

Islands. Caribbean Environment Programme, United Nations ~nvironment 

Contract #CR/5 102-86. 

., and S. A. Eckert. 1985. Tagging and nesting research of leatherback sea 

coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, 1985. Annl. Rept. USVl Div. 

Wildl. Ref. Serv. MIN 54-8680431. 58p. 

Eckert, K. L., and S. A. Eckert. 1988. Pre-reproductive movements of leatherback sea 

turtles D ermochelys coriacea nesting in the Caribbean. Copeia 1988:400-406. 
Eckert, K. L., and S. A. Eckert. 1990. Embryo mortality and hatch success in in situ and ' 

translo ated leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys imbricata, eggs. Biol. Conserv. B3: 

3 7-46. 1 

L., S. A. Eckert, and D. W. Nellis. 1984. Tagging and nesting research of 

ack sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea on Sandy Point, St. Croix, 1984, with 

recommendations for the population. Annl. Rept. USVl Div. Fish Wildl., 

Serv. MIN 54-85801 75. 60p. 

Eckert, K. L., and B. B. Lettsome. 1988. (Draft) WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action 

Plan fo the British Virgin Islands. Caribbean Environment Programme, United Nations 

Environment ! Programme. Contract #CR/5 102-86. 

K. L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G. L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging 

leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea. Can. J. Zool. 

Ehrenfeld, D. W., and A. Carr. 1967. The role of vision in the sea-finding orientation of 

the gre b n turtle Chelonia mydas. Anim. Behav. 15:25-36. 

M., 1983. A survey of nesting by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, alnd 

ad turtle, Caretta caretta, in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpubl. Report 

Wildl. Fund - U.S., Washington, DC, 49p. 

F., and J. Frazi'er. 1983. A leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea feediing 

J. Herpetol. 17:81-82. 

and C. Chapman. 1975. The care and maintenance of young leatherback 

coriacea at the Miami Seaquarium. Intl. Zool. Yearbook 

Frair, W. 11 970. The world's largest living turtle. Salt Water Aquarium 5:235-241. 

979. Taxonomic relations among sea turtles .elucidated by serological tests. 

35:239-244. 

1982. Serum electrophoresis and sea turtle classification. Comp. Biochem. 

. G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermoche,/ys 

warm turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793. 

1982. Note sur les traumas observe chez des Tortues luths adul1:es 

coriacea (Vandelli) (Testudines, Dermochelyidae). Aquariol. 8( 1 98 1 1: 
and M. Girondot. 1989. L8activitB de ponte de la tortue luths, Dermoche,lys 

(Vandelli, 1761), pendant la saison 1988 en Guyane Fran~aise. Rev. Ecol. 

44:26 1-274. 

., and M. A. McGehee. 1989. Effects of petroleum on the development and 

of marine turtle embryos, p.321-322. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. 

R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the 

Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-2:26. 

S. 1975. A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles. 

er. Mus. Nat. Hist. 155:397-436. 

. S. 1984. Historical analysis of theories of Chelonian relationship. Syst. Zool. 

F. A. 1987. National Report for Panama to the Western Atlantic Tuirtle 

ium, October 1987, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 

Glusing, . 1967. Aufrucht-versuch junger Lederschild Kroten Dermochelys coriacea. 

Aguar. 7 u Terrar. Z. 20:61-63. 

and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold 

Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Field Nat. 102(1):1-5. 

and G. B. Stenson. 1988. Brown adipose tissue in leatherback sea turtlles: 

organ in an endothermic reptile? Copeia 1988: 107 1-1 074. 

Gonzales, J. G. 1984. National Report for Puerto Rico to the Western Atlantic Turtle 

Sympo ium 1, p.349-363. In P. Bacon, F. Bacon, K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, M. 

Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, 17-22 July 

1983, San Jose Costa Rica, Vol. 3, Appendix 7. Univ. Miami Press, Miami, Florida 

USA. (I 

Greer, A E., J. D. Lazell, and R. M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for 

counte -current heat exchanger in the leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Nature 

244:l 1 1. 

B. (comp.). 1982. Red Data Book, Amphibia-Reptilia, Part I: Testudin~es, 

Rhynchocephalia. Intl. Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natl~ral 

Gland, Switzerland. 

C. den. 1980. Notes on the food of sea turtles: Eretmochelys imbricata 

and Dermochelys coriacea flinnaeus). Neth. J. Zool. 30(4):595-6 10. 
den., and M. M. Van Nierop. 1984. A study on the gut contents of :six 

Dermochelys coriacea (Linnaeus) (Reptilia: Testudines: 

from British waters and from the Netherlands. Zool. Vel-h. 

J. R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and 

Proc. Zool. Soc. London 130:455-535. 

n, J. R. 1980. The ecological strategies of sea turtles. Am. 20101. 

Henwood, T., and W. E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities 

during d ommercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817. 

H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga marina "lora", 

elys kempi (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico. Ciencia 

(4): 105-112. 

H. 1987. A reconnaissance of beaches and coastal waters from the borcler 

to the Mississippi River as habitats for marine turtles. Final Report, 

Panama City Lab (purchase order #NA-84-CF-A-134). 63p. 

Hirth, H. G. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea 

turtles. k m. Zool. 20:507-523. 

and L. H. Ogren. 1987. Some aspects of the ecology of the leatherback 

coriacea, at Laguna Jalova, Costa Rica. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMlFS 

56. 14 

Horrocks, b. A. 1987. Leatherbacks in Barbados. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 41 :7. 

Hopkins-Murphy, 

States, 

Proceedings 

August 

., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track 

the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environ. Conserv. 8:158- 

161. 

S. R. 1988. Sea turtle recovery efforts in the southeastern Unitled 

p. 63-71. In R. R. Odum, K. A. Riddleberger, and J. C. Ozier (eds.), 

of the Third Southeastern Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, 

1987, Athens, Georgia. 

R. 1974. The sea turtles of South-East Africa, II. Investigational Report Nlo. 

Research Inst., Durban, Republic of South Africa. 

. L. 1989. Juvenile leatherback cared for in captivity. Mar. Turtle Newsl. lt . 
and S. Bhaskar. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the eastern Indian Oceian, 

72. In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtl'es. 

nian Inst. Press, Washington D.C. 

A., and J. A. Musick. in press. Atlantic Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys 

. In: Virginia's Endangered Species. McDonald Woodward Publ. Co., 

A. R., and B. Weigle. 1989. A note on the distribution of leatherback turtles 

coriacea along the Florida coast in February 1988, p.83-85. In S. A. 

Eckert, and T. H. Richardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual 

Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Menno. 

Kontos, A R. 1985. Sea turtle research report, 1985, Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Unpu~bl. 

40p. +figs. 1 

K. 1987. 1986 Annual Summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance and 

success on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. USFWS Unit Coop. Agreement No. 

09-1551. 22p. 

R. 1988. 1987 Annual Summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance on 

Puerto Rico. USFWS Unit Coop. Agreement No. 14-1 6-009-1 55 1. 2!3p. 

Lambie, 1.1983. Two tagging records from Trinidad. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 24: 17. 

Lazell, J. D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 

1980: d 90-295. 

Leary, T. R. 1957. A schooling of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, on the 

Texas 4 oast. Copeia 1 957:232. 

LeBuff, CI R., Jr. 1976. Tourist Turtle. Florida wid. Magazine July 1976:16. 

LeBuff, C. R., Jr. 1990. The Loggerhead Turtle in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta 

Resear 6 h lnc., Sanibel Island, Florida. 236p. 

and W. M. Palmer. 1981. Records of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys 

(Linnaeus), and other marine turtles in North Carolina waters. Brimleyana 

Lescure, . F. Rimblot, J. Fretey, S. Renous, and C. Pieau. 1985. Influence de! la 

temper ture d'incubation des oeufs sur la sex-ratio des nouveaux-nes de la tortue luth, 

Dermo 1 helys coriacea. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1 00(3):355-359. 
J. 1984. A benthic feeding record from neuritic water for the leathery turtle 

coriacea. Copia 1984:552-553 

R. R., W. Hoggard, C. L. Roden, K. Mullin, and C. M. Rogers. 1988. 

and relative abundance of surfaced sea turtles in the north-central Gulf of 

and fall 1987, p.47-50. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the 

on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Meimo. 

Lund, F. 1973. Marine turtle program, Jupiter Island, Florida, 1973. Unpubl. Report. 

Lutz, P.L in press. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles. 

Procee b ings Int. Conf. Mar. Debris, April 1989, Honolulu, HI. 

Mann, T. M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles 

in sout h eastern Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

Sea turtle hatchery project with specific reference to the leatherback 

coriacea, Humacao, Puerto Rico, 1986. Annl. Rept., Puerto FIico 

Natural Resources. 23p. 

1987. Sea turtle hatchery project with specific reference to the leatherback 

coriacea and hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata sea turtles, Humacao, 

1987. Annl. Rept., Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. 36p. 

McDonal , D., P. H. Dutton, and R. H. Boulon. 1991. Tagging and nesting research on 

leather ack sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Contract Rept. PC-PNR-287-91 to U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Plann~ing 

and N I tural Resources, October 1 99 1 . 

, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road 

McFarla2. lightin Copeia 1 963: 1 53. 

Medrano, L., M. Dorizzi, F. Rimblot, and C. Pieau. 1987. Karyotypes of the sea turtle 

Dermo C helys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761 ). Amph.-Rept. 8(1987): 171-1 78. 

1983. Marine turtles of the Leeward Islands, Lesser Antilles. Atoll Research 

P. Meylan, and A. Ruiz. 1985. Nesting of Dermochelys coriacea in Caribbean 

J. Herpetol. 1 9(2):293-297. 

Michel, H B., and M. Foyo. 1976. Caribbean zooplankton, Part I. Dept. Defense, Niavy 

Dept., b ffice of Naval Research. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 
J. 1989. Occurrence of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the 

les in 1988 with reference to a record specimen, p.119-120. In S. A. Eckelrt, 

and T. H. Richardson (comp.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual 

Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Merrio. 

S. J., G. J. Ruiz, J. R. Spotila, and E. A. Standora. 1982. 

sex determination: current practices threaten conservation of 

Mortimer, J. A. 1979. Ascension Island: British jeopardize 45 years of conservation. 

Mar. T 1 rtle Newsl. 10:7-8. 

, N. 1978. Orientation of marine turtles, p. 41 3-41 9. In K. Schmidt - Kownig 

Keeton. (eds.), Animal Migration, Navigation and Homing. Springer Ver bag, 

Mortimer, 

45-51. 

lnstitut 

~rosovsk/y, N. 1981. Plastic jellyfish. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 17:5-6. 

J. A. 1982. Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles, p. 

In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian 

on Press, Washington, D.C. 

, N. 1983. Ecology and nest-site selection of leatherback turtles, 

coriacea. Biol. Conserv. 26:47-56. 

N., P. H. Dutton, and C. P. Whitmore. 1984. Sex ratios of two species of 

nesting in Suriname. Can. J. Zool. 62:2227-2239. 

N., and P. C. H. Pritchard. 1971. Body temperatures of Dermochc!lys 

and other sea turtles. Copeia 1971 (4):624-63 1. 

N., and C. L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual 

in sea turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biol. Conserv. 

Murphy, . M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjecited 

to dist rbance on the beach. Paper presented at Fifth Annual workshop on Sea Turtle 

Biolog 1 and Conservation, 13-1 6 March 1 985, Waverly, Georgia. 

. A. 1988. The sea turtles of Virginia with notes on identification and natural 

. Virginia Sea Grant Program, VIMS, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 22p. 

Neill, W. H., and E. D. Stevens. 1974. Thermal inertia versus thermoregulation in 

"war A " turtles and tunas. Science 184: 1008- 101 0. 
Nelson, 

U.S. Fish 

(Rev.). 

Nelson, D. 

nesting 

Waterways 

Nick, L. 

33: 1 

O'Hara, K., 

more 

Paladino, 

turtles, 

Philibosiar., 

imbricata, 

Phillips, E. 

Brit. J. 

Pilkey, 0. 

and B. 

Durham, 

Polunin, h. 

Possardt, 

continental 

Prescott, 

D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtlles. 

Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2 

34p. 

A., and D. D. Dickerson. 1988. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle 

beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. Report. U.S. Army Engineer 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

1912. Das Kopfskelett von Dermochelys coriacea. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. An~at. 

-2:38. 

S. Idicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A citizen's guide to plastics in the ocean: 

than a litter problem. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 

F. V., M. P. 08Connor, and J. R. Spotila. 1990. Metabolism of leatherback 

gigantothermy, and thermoregulation of dinosaurs. Nature 344: 858-860. 

R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochellys 

by stadium lights. Copeia 1976:824. 

J. 1977. Raising hatchlings of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. 

Herpetol. 5:677-678. 

H., Jr., D. C. Sharma, H. R. Wanless, L. J. Doyle, 0. H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, 

L. Gruver. 1984. Living With the East Florida Shore. Duke University Press, 

NC. 259p. 

V. C. 1977. Wildlife Thailand. Conserv. News, Assoc. Conserv. 1977:6- 10. 

E. E. 1991. A conservation program for sea turtles in the southeastern 

United States. J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 62: 35-48. 

R. L. 1 988. Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 1 977- 1 987, 

. In B. A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on 

e Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-2 14. 

C. H. 197 1. The leatherback or leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. IUCN 

1 : 1-39. Morges, Switzerland. 

Pritchard, 

(Cheloniidae 

Pritchard, 

P. C. H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles 

and Dermochelyidae). Anim. Behav. 21 :18-27. 

P. C. H. 1976. Post-nesting movements of marine turtles (Cheloniidae snd 

Dermoqhelyidae) tagged in the Guianas. Copeia 1976:749-754. 
Pritchard, 

Calif orr 

Pritchard, 

Pacific 

74 1 -74 

Pritchard, 

Caribb~ 

#CR/5 1 

Pritchard, 

Proceec 

NOAA 

Pritchard, 

surviva 

Center, 

Pritchard, 

Study ( 

1 Rainey, W 

Rathbun, 

turtles 

Naval F 

Raymond, 

south E 

Orlandc 

Raymond, 

lighting 

Educati 

Rhodin, P 

marine 

Rhodin, A 

of Derr; 

290:24 

Rhodin, I 

leather1 

1982: 1 

C. H. 1977. Marine Turtles of Micronesia. Chelonia Press, San Francisco, 

C. H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea, in 

exico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982: 

, C. H. 1988a. (Draft) WIDECAST Recovery Action Plan for Guyana. 

I Environment Programme, United Nations Environment Programme. Contract 

2-86. 

C. H. 1988b. Sea turtles in Guyana, p.85-87. In 6. A. Schroeder (comp.), 

gs of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

ch. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214. 

C. H., and T. H. Stubbs. 1982. An evaluation of sea turtle populations and 

tatus on Vieques Island. Field Report, Dept. Navy (Naval Oceans Systems 

an Diego); contract N66001-80-C-0560. 

C. H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. Society for the 

Amphibians and Reptiles. 

E. 1979. Status of sea turtles on Vieques Island. Unpubl. 122p. 

B., T. Carr, N. Carr, C. A. Woods. 1985. Distribution of manatees and slea 

Puerto Rico, with emphasis on Roosevelt Roads Naval Station. Final rept., 

:ilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Va. 92 p. 

. W. 1984a. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in 

vard County, Florida. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, 

. W. 1984b. Sea turtle hatchling disorientation and artificial beachfront 

I review of the problem and potential solutions. Center for Environmen1:al 

I, Washington, D.C. 72p. 

G. J. 1985. Comparative chondro-osseous development and growth in 

rtles. Copeia 1 985:752-77 1. 

;. J., J. A. Ogden, and G. J. Conlogue. 1981. Chondro-osseous morphology 

chelys coriacea, a marine reptile with mammalian skeletal features. Nature 

246. 

G. J., and R. C. Schoelkopf. 1982. Reproductive data on a female 

ck turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, stranded in New Jersey. Coptzia 

1-1 83. 
Rhodin, 

Derm 

Rimblot, 

differ 

Derm 

Rimblottemp1 

(Vanc 

sex-ri 

(8):2: 

Ross, J, 

coriac 

(eds.1 

WastRuckde: 

turtle 

Sadove, 

marin 

Resei 

Schroed 

resull 

Work 

NMF! 

Schroed 

Caret 

Canas 

Ecolo 

1 Schulz, 

Schwarl 

In J 

Threz 

N. C. 

Shoop, I 

Hatte 

and t 

(CeTi 

. G. J., and H. M. Smith. 1982. The original authorship and type specime~i of 

:helys coriacea. J. Herpetol. 1 6(3):3 1 6-3 1 7. 

=., J. Fretey, N. Mrosovsky, J. Lescure, and C. Pieau. 1985. Se)cual 

 tia at ion as a function of the incubation temperature of eggs in the sea turtle 

:helys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761 1. Amph.-Rept. 6(1985):83-92. 

sly, F., J. Lescure, J. Fretey, and C. Pieau. 1986-1987. Sensibilite 8 la 

ature de la differenciation sexuelle chez la tortue luth, Dermochelys coriacea 

li, 1761); application des donnebs de I'incubation artificiell 8 I'btude de la 

o dans la nature. Ann. Sci. Nat., Zool., Paris 13" SBrie, 1986-1 987 

-290. 

'., and J. P. Ottenwalder. 1983. The leatherback sea turtle, Dermocht?lys 

a, nesting in the Dominican Republic, p.189-209. In A. Rhodin and K. Miyata 

Advances in Herpetology and Evolutionary Biology. Srnithsonian Inst. Pre!ss, 

gton D.C. 

iel, C. L. Ellis, and C. R. Shoop. 1982. Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea 

Jesting. Herpetol. Rev. 1 3: 1 26. 

. S., and S. J. Morreale. 1989. Marine mammal and sea turtle encounters with 

debris in the New York Bight and the northeast Atlantic. Draft. Okeanos Ocean 

:h Foundation. 12p. 

, B. A. 1988. Sea turtle stranding and salvage network (STSSN): 1987 

p.99-101. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.1, Proceedings of the Eighth Ann~ual 

lop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Merno. 

SEFC-2 14. 

, 0. A., and N. B. Thompson. 1987. Distribution of the loggerhead turtle, 

caretta, and the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in the Cape 

ral, Florida area: results of aerial surveys, p.45-53. In W. N. Witzell (ed.1, 

of East Florida Sea Turtles. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS 53. 

1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zool. Verh. (Leiden) No. 143. 

F. J. 1 977. Species accounts: Reptilia; Testudines; Cheloniidae, p.303-308. 

E. Cooper, S. S. Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg (eds.), Endangered and 

!ned Plants and Animals of North Carolina. N. C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh, 

R., T. L. Doty, and N. E. Bray. 1981. Sea turtles in the region between Ciape 

s and Nova Scotia in 1979, p.68-75. In A Characterization of marine mammals 

tles in the mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U. S. outer continental shelf 

I), executive summary. 75p. 
, J. 0. 1. 1970. Rearing hatchlings of Dermochelys coriacea (L.). Brit. J. 

SpOczins% Herpet 1. 4: 1 89-1 92. 

J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center 

ronmental Education, Washington, D.C. 

Tallevast, T., J. Howell, C. Campbell, N. Colon, W. Colon, and V. Nichols. 1990. 

Leathe back turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting study in Culebra, Puerto Rico, 1989. 

Annl. d ept. to P. R. Conservation Foundation and the U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 24p. 

N. B. 1984. Progress report on estimating density and abundance of marine 

of first year pelagic surveys in the Southeast U..S. Natl. Mar. Fish. 

32p. +figs. 

. 1978. First record of the Atlantic leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea 

Can Field Nat. 92(3):287. 

Thurston, J. 1975. Observations on the ecology of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys 

imbricata, on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Eleventh Annl. Conf., Island Mar. Lab. 

Caribb I an. 11 p. 

Thurston, J., and T. Weiwandt. 1975. Management of sea turtles on Mona Island. Puerto 

Rico D h R Rept. 16p. 

Tucker, . D. 1988. A summary of leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting at 

Culebr , Puerto Rico, from 1984-1 987 with management recommendations. Rapt. 

submi 2 ed to U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 33p. 

Tucker, . 0. 1989. The influence of reproductive variations and spatial distribution on 

nestin success for leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea. Unpubl. M.S.Thesis, 

Univ. 1 eorgia. 

r, V. B. 1990. Florida's Sea Turtles. Florida Power and Light Co., Miami, FL. 

63p. 

P. Lutz, 0. Odell, E. VanVleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of 

arine turtles. Final report to Minerals Mgmt. Service MMS Contract No. 14-1 2- 

Witham, b. 1977. Derrnochelys coriacea in captivity. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 3:6. 

B. E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and 

and their relationship to hatchling production on an important Florida 

M .S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando. 
B. E. in press. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial 

Witherin on, B. E., and K. A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the 

seawa d orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Biol. Conserv. 55: 

139-1 f 9. 

1966. The penial morphology and the relationships of cryptodiran turtles. 

nal Papers, Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 647:l-24. 

. 1986. Sea turtle nesting at Virgin Islands National Park and Buck Is1,and 

Monument, 1980-1 985. Natl. Park Serv., V. I. Natl. Park. 27p. 
Priorities if 

Priority 1 

Priority 2 

Priority 3 

Ill. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Column 4 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows: 

in action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the speci'es 

from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

in action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species 

populationlhabitat quality or some other significant negative impact short of 

extinction. 

ill other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 
~nformatibn Gathering - I or R (research) 

1. Propa ation 

2. Reint oduction 

3. Habit t maintenance and manipulation 

4. Preda or and competitor control 

5. Depr dation control 

6. Disea e control 

7. Other 1 management 

1. Leas 

agreement 

7. Other 

Other - 

and education 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

IGeneral 1 lTask 1 I Task I ReaponsiMe I Estimated I-lscal Year CortclOW 1 Commental 

ICategory IUan Task 1 Number 1 Priority I Duration IAgency ICurrent IFy2/Fy3/Fy4JFy5/Notes 

1 M-3 1 Implement and 11111 1 3 I continuing I COE, Project I I 1 I 1 1 No eatimate; costa to 

I levaluate beach tilling 1 1 I I sponaora I I I I 1 Ibe borne by specific 

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 replenishment projects 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 R-3 1 Evaluate the relation- 1 11 12 1 3 1 4 years I COE, Project 1 1 I 1 35 1 35 1 

1 Iship of sand character- I I 1 1 sponsors 1 1 1 1 1 1 

I listics to hatch success, I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 

I I sex ratios and I I I I I I I I I 

1 nesting behavior 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-3 I Reestablish dunea and 1 11 13 1 3 1 continuing I COE, Project I 1 1 1 1 1 No estimate; costs to be 

I 1 native vegetation I I 1 1 sponsors 1 I 1 1 1 I borne by specific 

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 replenishment projects 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-3, R-3 I Evaluate sand tranrfer 1 1 1 14 1 3 I continuing 1 COE I I I 1 I 1 Routine 

VI 

P I I systems as an alternative I I I I I I I I I I 

1 1 to beach replenishment I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 

I I I I I I I I I I 

1 0-3, M-3 IEvaluate current laws 1 1121 1 2 I continuing 1 FDNR 

I I 

I 1 1 1 1 1 Routine 

I 1 on beach armoring I I I I PRDNR I I I 1 1 

1 VlFWS 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1 0-3, M-3 1 Ensure laws regulating 1 1 122 1 2 1 continuing 1 FDNR 1 1 1 I I 1 Routine 

I 1 coastal construction I 1 I 1 PRDNR 1 1 1 I I I 

1 1 are adequate and I I I 1 VlDFW I I 1 I I I 

I 1 enforced I I J I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-3 1 Ensure failed erosion 1 1 123 1 3 I continuing 1 FDNR 1 I 1 I 1 1 Routine 

I 1 contrd measures are I I I I PRDNR I I 1 I 1 1 

I I removed I 1 1 1 VlDW I I I I 1 1 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M-3 1 Identify and ensure 1113 11 I continuing 1 FWS I I 1 1 1 1 No estimate; coats will 

I Ilong-term protection of 1 1 1 1 PRDNR 1 I 1 1 I Ibe rdated to acquirition 

I 1 important nerting 1 I I 1 VIDFW 1 1 I 1 I lif new areas are identified 

I 1 beachea I I I I FDNR I 1 1 I 1 lfor long-term protection 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

-- ltuk I I Task I ReaponsiMe I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Cornmental 

IEategory I Ran Task I Numk 1 Priority I Duration 1 Agency ICurrent I Fy 2 I Fy 3Ty 4 I FY s ITotm 

I I I I 

I R-2 I Identify important 1 121 1 1 

I I marine habitats I I 

continuing 

I I I I I 

I M-3 I Rwent degradation of 1 122 1 2 1 continuing 

I I habitat from oil and gat I I I 

I Idwdoprnentr, refining, I I I 

I I and transhipment I I I 

I I activitiw 1 I I 

I I I I 

I M-3,O-3 IRwent degradation of 1 123 1 2 

I Icoastal habitat from I I 

I 1 industrial and I I 

continuing 

I I 

NMFS, VlDFW I I 

PRDNR, east I I 

and gulf coast I I resource I I 

agencies I I 

I I 

USCG, NMFS, 1 I 

MMS. RNS, I I 

FDNR, PRDNR, I I 

VIDPNR I I 

I I 

I I 

NMFS, €PA, I I 

ooartal resource I I 

agendes I I 

VI I I rewage effluents I I .I I I I 

cn I I I I I I I I 

1 1-2 i~dmtih othw threats i 124 i 2 1 continuing I NMFS I I 

I Ito marine habitat 1 1 I 1 I I 

1-1 

I 

,I Monitor trend8 in nesting 

I activity 

I 

I 

I 

I 

R-1 , R-9 I Evaluate hatch success 

R-14, land implement nest 

M-4 I protection measurer 

I I 

R-14 IDetermineeffectaof 12131 

I artifidal lighting on I 

I hatchlings and nesting I 

Ifemalas I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

lW I 85 

I VlDW I 10 

1 PRDNR I 

I USN I 

I FDNR I 

I I 

I W, USN, I 

I VIDFW, PRDNR, I 

1 FDNR I 

I I 

I FWS, PRDNR. I 

I VIDFW, FDNR I 

I I 

I I 

I 

1 Funds ara identified under 

1221 1 and 221 2 because of 

I research overlap with 

1 population studies 

I 

I 

I Routine 

I - I 

I 

I Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 Costa included in task 21 1 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

1 General 1 lTssk I 1 Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Commentsl 

I Category 1 Plan Task l Number I Riority I Duratim haacy It2uwm~ 1~~9 1~~4 1~~5 1- 

1 0-3 Ilmplement, enforce, and 1 2132 1 2 1 continuing I VIDPNR, PRDNR, I 1 1 I I 1 Routine 

1 evaluate lighting 1 

1 ordinances where I 

I appropriate I 

I I 

I Enforce take prwisions 1 21 33 

lof Endangered Species I 

lAct and evaluate need for I 

1 Federal lighting regulations 1 

I I 

I Eliminate vehicular 1 214 

I traffic on nesting I 

I beachs I 

I I 

1 Ensure beach replen- 1 21 5 

1 ishment and coastal I 

1 construction avoid I 

Inesting/hatching season I 

I I 

1 Revent waste disposal 1 21 6 

I 1 on nesting beaches I I 

I I I E 

1 0-2 IEnsure law enforcement 1 21 7 1 2 

I Iprevents poaching I I 

I 1 and harassment I 1 

I I I I 

I R- 14 1 Determine natural 1 218 1 2 

I 1 hatchling sex ratios I I 

I I I I 

I R-1 , R-14 I Determine genitic 1 219 1 2 

1 Irelationship of U.S. 1 I 

I ICsribbean population to I I 

I 1 other major nesting I I 

I 1 populations I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

1 

I 

1 3 years 

I 

I 

1 3-5 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I FDNR, Florida 

I east coast 

I Counties 

I 

I WS 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I PRDNR, VIDPNR 

I FWS, FDNR 

I 

I 

I PRDNR, FWS 

I FDNR, VIDPNR 

I 

I 

I 

I PRDNR, VIDPNR 

I FDNR 

I 

I FWS, NMFS 

I 

I 

I 

I FWS, VlDM 

I 

I 

I FWS, NMFS, 

I FDNR, PRDNR, 

1 VlDW 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

1 Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

IGeneral I ITask I 1 Task 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 1 GmmenLf 

I Category I Plan Task 1 Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency ICurrent I Fy 2 I Fy 3 I Fy 4 I Fy 5 I Notes 

I 1 I 

I R- 14 I Determine hatchling 1 2211 

I ldispersal patterns and I 

I ljuvenile distribution I 

I 1 and abundance I 

I I I 

I R-8, R-14 IDetermine migratory 1 2212 

I Ipathways, distribution and I 

I I I 

1 3-5 years I NMFS, FWS I 

I I I 

1 50 1 50 I Costs for all agencies 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I 

1 5-10 years I NMFS, FWS, 

I I VIDFW, PRDNR 

I I FDNR 

I I 

I I I 

1 150 1 150 ICosts for all agencies 

I 1 internesting movements I 

I I I 

I I I 

I R-1 ,R-6 I Determine growth rates, 1 221 3 

I I I 

1 10-15 years I NMFS, FWS, I 

I I I 

1 100 1 100 ICosts for all agencies 

I I I 

I I I 

I lage at sexual maturity, I 

I 1 su~ivorship rates I 

I I VIDFW, PRDNR I 

I 1 FDNR I 

I I I 

I R-1 , R-14 IQuantify threats to 12214 

V1 I Iadults and juveniles I 

I lalong migratory routes I 

I 1 and on f oraging grounds I 

I I I 

1 R-14 I Evaluate effects of 1 2215 

I lindustrial and sewage I 

I leffluents I 

I I I 

1 M-7, 03 llmplernent measures to 1 2221 

I (reduce capture and I 

I Imortality from- shrimp I 

I lvessels I 

I I I 

1 1-1 4 )Evaluate extent of 1 2222 

I lincidental take from other I 

I I commercial fisheries 1 

I I I 

1 0-3 1 Promulgate and enforce 1 2223 

I I appropriate regulations I 

I I to reduce mortality from I 

I 1 other oornmercial fisheries 

I 

1 5-10 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 3 years 

I 

I 

I 

1 2 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 5-10 years 

I 

I I 

I NMFS, VlDFW I 

I PRDNR, FDNR I 

I I I 

I I I Unable to determine costs 

I I 1 which are dependent on reaults 

I I lof 2211 and 2212 tasks 

I I I 

I I I 

100 1100 1 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I Routine 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

1 50 1 50 ISome overlap with task 2214 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I Routine 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I EPA, FWS, NMFS I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I NMFS. FDNR, I 

I GDNR, SCWMRD, 1 

I NCDNR 1 

I I 

I 

I NMFS 

I 

I 

I I 

I I 

I continuing INMFS 

I I 

I I 

1 I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

IGeneral I ITask I I Task I Estimated Fiscal Year Coats $000 I Comments1 

ICatagory I Plan Task -. . Inumber ~mor~ty 

I 

I Maintain carcass 

I stranding network 

I 

I 

I I Determine effects of oil 

I and oil dispersants on 

I a11 life stagen 

I I Determine aw turtle 

ldirtribution and use of 

Imdne habitats 

I assodated with oil and 

Igas dwdopments 

I 

I Ensure impacts are 

Iaddrmsed during 

Iplanning of oil and 

Igar development 

I 

I Evaluate extent of 

Ientanglmm and ingmItion of persittent 

Imarine debris 

I 

I Evaluate effects of 

1 ingestion of persistent 

I marine debria 

I 

Ilmplement other 

I mwsurw to reduce 

lpersirtent marine debris 

I 

1 continuing ~NMFS,FWS, I I I I IVolunteer afforta or costs 

I I coastal I I 1 I I lassodated with surveys identified 

I Iresource aganoim I I I I I !in -Gmm Tutle Fbxw~ 

I I I I I I I I Plms 

I I I I I I I I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

1 3-5 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 3-5 years 

I 

I 

I 

i ~~S,industry i 

I I 

I I 

I I 

IMMS, COE, I 

1 NMFS I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I MMS, COE, I 

INMFS, industry I 

I I 

I I 

I I I 

INMFS, coastal I 1 10 

I I I 

1 3-5 yew (NMFS, coastal I 

I Iresource agencies I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

1 continuing I USCG I 

i continuing i USCG, NMFS I 

I I I 

No estimate 

Costa are included in 

LoggwheadlGreen Turtle 

Recovery Plans 

Routine 

coats for all agenciw 

I I I I I 

( 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 ICosts for all agencies 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I Routine 

I I I I. I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I ~outine 

I I I I I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

IGeneral I ITask I ITask I Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Comments/ 

ICategory I Plan Task I Number 1 Priority 1 Duration 1 Agency lcurrent I Fy 2 I Fy 3 I Fy 4 1 Fy 5 1 Notea 

1 1-1 4, 0-4 1 Centralize tag series 

I I and records 

I I 

1 1-1 4, 0-4 lcentralize turtle tagging 

I I records 

I I 

I I 

I R-14, M-7 I Develop care and 

I maintenance standards 

lfor captive leatherbacks 

I I Designate rehabilitation 

I facilities 

I 

1 Provide slide programs 

1 and information leaflets 

I 0-1, M-7 I Develop brochure on 

I I recommended lighting 

I I modifications 

I I 

I 0-1, M-7 I Develop public service 

I I announcementa on sea 

I Iturtle conswation 

I 1 issues 

I I 

I 0-1, M-7 IPost information signs 

I Ion important nesting 

I I beaches 

I I 

I M-7, 0-1 1 Develop criteria for 

I IpuMic observation of 

I I recovery and research 

I I activities 

I I 

I M-7, 0-4 I Develop international 

I I agraments 

I 1 year 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

1 5 years 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 1 year 

I 

I 

I 

1 3 years 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 continuing 

I 

I NMFS, FWS 1 

I I 

I I 

I FWS, NMFS I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I NMFS, FWS 1 

I I 

I I 

I NMFS, FWS, I 

I coastal rmowce I 

I agenaea I 

I I 

I FWS, NMFS I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I NPS, PRDNR, I 

I VIDPNR, FDNR I 

I I 

I I 

I FWS, I 

1 VlDFw I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I FWS, NMFS I 

I I 

I Routine 

I 

I 

ICoata identified in Loggerhedl 

!Green Recovery Plans and 

linduaive of leatherback costa 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I Routine 

I 

I 

1 All agency costa 

I 

I 

I 

IComidartirisdinLqlgahsldOraar 

1 Tvtle Recovay Ram and inclusive 

lof loathofback requirmenta 

I 

ICwta included in Loggerhead/ 

IGrm Recovery plans and 

lindusive of leatherback 

I requirements 

I i ~outine 

I 

I 

I 

I Routine 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I Routine 

I 
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Leatherback Turtle (Recovery Priority#7) 

IGenc~sl I lTask 1 Responsible I Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000 I Comments/ - 

IlStmm Tam 7 IFv3 IFv4 IFv5 1- 

1 M-7, 0-4 IRayify Rotocd to 142 12 1 I MS, NMFS I I I I I 1 Routine 

I 1 Csrtagena Convention I I I I State Dept. I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 
I. TABLE 1. Records of leatherback turtles nesting on beaches in the Ul. S. 

"BEE" = data reported to the author (K. Eckert) by USVl Bureai~ of 

Enforcement officers. Beaches listed in geographical order. Table adapted 

Comments Source 

ST. CRO~X 

Sandy ~c/int 82-242 nestslyr Basford et al., 

(1 982- 1 988) 1988 

camp0 R)CO abundance unknown BEE 

Carlton (Hope t 0 Long Point) 

< 10 nestslyr Otto Tranberg 

3-1 1 turtleslyr Tom Adams, 19818 

(1 1-52 nestslyr; 

1 983- 1 988) 

~rapetreh Bay < 10 nestslyr Otto Tranberg 

Jack's ~fy 0-2 turtleslyr Boulon, 1987 

Teague day (Reef Beach) 

Coakley bay 

Pull ~oinl//~rune Bay 

Shoy's Beach 1 

~uccanebr Beach 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

one nest (year?) 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0-3 turtleslyr 

c 5 nestslyr 

0-3 turtleslyr 

c 10 nestslyr 

0-2 turtleslyr 

st 20 nestslyr 

0-2 turtleslyr 

< 5 nestslyr 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 
Davis ~eakh 

Little Bay 

FangseletIPelican 

Sprat Hall 1 

&& - 

0- 1 turtleslyr Boulon, 1987 

Cove < 5 nestslyr Otto Tranberg 

Coki Poin 

unnamed 

ST.JOHN 

Trunk Ba I 

~innamod Bay 

< 10 nestslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

1985 landing (nest?) 

0- 1 8 crawlslyr 

(1 982- 1 989) 

1-2 tu,rtles/yr 

abundance unknown 

0-2 turtleslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0-1 turtleslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0- 1 turtleslyr 

0-2 turtleslyr 

0-1 turtleslyr 

Otto Tranberg, 

Toby Tobias 

Boulon, 1987 

Otto Tranberg 

Zandy Hillis 

Boulon, 1987 

Zullo, 1986 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 

Boulon, 1987 
PUERTO ~ICO 

APPENDI~ 

including 

Beach 

Aiiasco ~ unspecified Matos, 1 986,1987 

I. TABLE 2. Records of leatherback turtles nesting on beaches in Puerto Rico, 

lslas Culebra, Vieques, and Mona. - 

Comments Source 

Ballena 1 

Humaca 

lsabela 

Jobos 1 

unspecified Cintron and Cint~ron, 

1987 

4 crawls (1 986) Matos, 1986 

1 - 1 5 nestslyr Cintron and Cintron, 

1987 

1 nest (poached, 1983) Gonzdles, 1984 

unspecified Matos, 1 986,1987 

1 crawl (1 983) Gonzdles, 1984 

1 nest (hatch, 1988) Kathy Hall 

Larga (NE of Punta Tuna) 1 crawl (1 983) Gonziiles, 1984 

Manatl 1 1 nest (1 987) Cintron and Cintron, 

1987 

~aunabd unspecified Matos, 1 986,1987 

Paulinas 

Luquillo 1 Fajardo 

6 crawls (1 986) Matos, 1986 

4- 1 5 nestslyr Cintron and Cintron 

1987 

Piiiones 1 10 crawls (1 9861 Matos, 1986 

Rincdn ~ unspecified Matos, 1987 

Rio ~randa unspecified Matos, 1 986,1987 

Tres ~edmanos < 1 0 nests (1 987) Cintron and Cintrfon, 

1987 

~abucod unspecified Matos, 1987 

Playa ~sbe I 

1-7 nestslyr 

63 

Tucker, 1988 
APPENDIX 

CULEBRA 

Brava 

Cayo Nort 

Flamenco 

Resaca 

Tdrtola 

Zoni 

(general) 1 

2nd Punta beachy Ica os Of 

"east end"1 

Purple 

Turtle 

Yellow 

Playa Las Mujeres 

I. Table 2. continued. - 

1 984- 1 987) 

68-95 nestslyr Tucker, 1988 

1 nest (1 984) Tucker, 1988 

0-2 nestslyr Tucker, 1988 

39-80 nestslyr Tucker, 1988 

1 nest (1 984) Tucker, 1988 

0-7 nestslyr Tucker, 1988 

26 crawls, April- Pritchard and 

October(?) (1 98 1 Stubbs, 1982 

1 crawl (1 983) GonzBles, 1984 

9 crawls, 6 May- Carr, 1978b 

6 June 1978 

1 crawl (1 983) GonzBles, ,1984 

2 crawls (1 983) GonzBles, 1984 

1 crawl (1 983) GonzBles, 1984 

2 crawls (1983) GonzBles, 1984 

5 crawls (1 987) Kontos ,1988 

1 1 nests (1 985) Kontos, 1985 
1. TABLE 3. Reported nesting activity of leatherback turtles in Florida, 19'79 - 

effort was not consistent from year to year and numbers reflect 

(Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Statewide 

Brevard 

Broward 

Dade 

Flagler 

Indian River 

St. John 

Volusia 

RANGE IN ANNUAL 

NUMBER OF NESTS 

(1 979 - 1990)